ALAMEDA COUNTY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ACTAC)

MEETING NOTICE Tuesday, May 3, 2011, 1:30 p.m. 1333 Broadway, Suite 300, Oakland, California 94612 (see map on last page of agenda)

Chairperson: Arthur L. Dao Staff Liaison: Matt Todd Secretary: Claudia Leyva

AGENDA Copies of individual Agenda Items are available on the Alameda CTC’s Website at: www.alamedactc.com 1.0 INTRODUCTIONS

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may address the Committee during “Public Comment” on any item not on the agenda. Public comment on an agenda item will be heard when that item is before the Committee. Anyone wishing to comment should make his or her desire known to the Chair.

3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR A/I 3.1 Approval of Minutes of April 1, 2011 – Page 1

3.2 Review of CTC Meeting Summary (No CTC meeting scheduled for April - no meeting summary this month)

3.3 Review Local Streets and Roads Meeting Summary – Page 7

3.4 Review Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Good Faith Effort Training – Page 9

3.5 Review Funding Opportunities 3.5.1 Cycle 3 Safe Routes to School – Page 11

3.6 Review Alameda CTC New Phone Numbers and Email Addresses – Page 13

ACTAC Agenda 05/03/11 Page 2 of 3

4.0 ACTION ITEMS A/D/I 4.1 Approval of Vehicle Registration Fee Program Guidelines *

4.2 Approval of Guaranteed Ride Home Program Annual Evaluation – Page 15

4.3 Approval of Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP)/Transportation Expenditure Plan Project and Program Submittal List – Page 45

4.4 Approval of 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): Development Process – Page 105

4.5 Approval of Final FY 2011/12 TFCA Program – Page 117

4.6 Monitoring Reports 4.6.1 Approval of STIP Program At Risk Report – Page 121 4.6.2 Approval of Federal STP/CMAQ Program At Risk Report – Page 127 4.6.3 Approval of CMA Exchange Program Quarterly Status Report – Page 147 4.6.4 Approval of TFCA Program At Risk Report – Page 149

5.0 NON-ACTION ITEMS D/I 5.1 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update: 5.1.1 Presentation on Community Design and Transportation (CDT) program by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority* 5.1.2 Presentation on Automobile Trip Generated (ATG) measure for assessing transportation impacts by San Francisco County Transportation Authority*

5.2 Review of Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS)/Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP)/Transportation Expenditure Plan Information – Page 153

5.3 Review Project Eligibility Categories for Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program – Page 163

5.4 Nominate ACTAC Representative for MTC’s Local Streets and Roads Working Group*

5.5 Review Caltrans Quarterly Federal Inactive Projects Report – Page 167

5.6 Review Caltrans’ Interim Guidance for Development of Project Initiation Documents (PID) – Page 173

6.0 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM UPDATE 6.1 Review Legislative Program Update*

7.0 STAFF AND COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS

ACTAC Agenda 05/03/11 Page 3 of 3

8.0 OTHER/ADJOURNMENT NEXT MEETING: June 7, 2011. Location: ACTIA Office, 1333 Broadway, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94612.

Key: A – Action Item; I – Information Item; D - Discussion Item * – Material will be available at the meeting

(#) All items on the agenda are subject to action and/or change by the Committee.

PLEASE DO NOT WEAR SCENTED PRODUCTS SO INDIVIDUALS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES MAY ATTEND

Glossary of Acronyms

MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACCMA Alameda County Congestion Management MTS Metropolitan Transportation System Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act ACE Altamont Commuter Express NOP Notice of Preparation ACTA Alameda County Transportation Authority (1986 Measure B authority) PCI Pavement Condition Index ACTAC Alameda County Technical Advisory PSR Project Study Report Committee RM 2 Regional Measure 2 (Bridge toll) ACTC Alameda County Transportation RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Commission Program ACTIA Alameda County Transportation RTP Regional Transportation Plan (MTC’s Improvement Authority (2000 Measure B Transportation 2035) authority) SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient ADA Americans with Disabilities Act Transportation Equity Act BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District SCS Sustainable Community Strategy BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District SR State Route BRT Bus Rapid Transit SRS Safe Routes to Schools Caltrans California Department of Transportation STA State Transit Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act STIP State Transportation Improvement Program CIP Capital Investment Program STP Federal Surface Transportation Program CMAQ Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air TCM Transportation Control Measures Quality TCRP Transportation Congestion Relief Program CMP Congestion Management Program TDA Transportation Development Act CTC California Transportation Commission TDM Travel-Demand Management CWTP Countywide Transportation Plan TEP Transportation Expenditure Plan EIR Environmental Impact Report TFCA Transportation Fund for Clean Air FHWA Federal Highway Administration TIP Federal Transportation Improvement FTA Federal Transit Administration Program GHG Greenhouse Gas TLC Transportation for Livable Communities HOT High occupancy toll TMP Traffic Management Plan HOV High occupancy vehicle TMS Transportation Management System ITIP State Interregional Transportation TOD Transit-Oriented Development Improvement Program TOS Transportation Operations Systems LATIP Local Area Transportation Improvement Program TVTC Tri Valley Transportation Committee LAVTA Livermore-Amador Valley Transportation VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay Authority VMT Vehicle miles traveled LOS Level of service

Directions to the Offices of the Alameda County Transportation Commission:

1333 Broadway, Suite 220 Oakland, CA 94612

Public Transportation Access:

BART: City Center / 12th Street Station

AC Transit: Lines 1,1R, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 40, 51, 63, 72, 72M, 72R, 314, 800, 801, 802, 805, 840

Auto Access: • Traveling South: Take 11th Street exit from I‐980 to 11th Street

• Traveling North: Take 11th

Street/Convention Center Alameda County th Transportation Commission Exit from I‐980 to 11 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 Street Oakland, CA 94612 • Parking: City Center Garage – Underground Parking, (Parking entrances located on 11th or 14th Street)

ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.1

ALAMEDA COUNTY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTIONS

2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT

3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 Approval of the Minutes of March 1, 2011 3.2 Review March CTC Meeting Summary A motion was made by Frascinella to approve the consent calendar; Odumade made a second. The motion passed unanimously.

4.0 ACTION ITEMS 4.1 Approval of Vehicle Registration Fee Program Principles Todd requested ACTAC to recommend Board approval of the Vehicle Registration Fee Program Principles.

ACTAC had a lengthy discussion regarding the Local Road Improvement and Repair Program category of the VRF. A motion was made by Rehm to recommend the Local Road Improvement and Repair category of the VRF Program use a 100% pass through formula, use population as criteria to sub-divide planning area funds and create criteria that allows eligibility of both regional and non- regional facilities; Odumade made a second. The motion passed unanimously.

ACTAC also had a lengthy discussion regarding the Transit for Congestion Relief Program category of the VRF. Vuicich made a recommendation to add in the language for the approach with “efficiency and effectiveness” to call out “reliability and frequency”. It was also discussed that the pass programs should be a lower priority than capital or operating projects.

Todd went over the approach for the Local Transportation Technology Program and the Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access and safety Program. Cooke made a recommendation that the Bike/Ped funds be done as a programmatic pass through program as opposed to a project oriented program; Vuicich made a second. The motion passes unanimously.

4.2 Approval of Draft FY 2011/12 TFCA Program Taylor requested ACTAC to recommend Board approval of the Draft FY 2011/12 TFCA Program. A motion was made by Odumade to recommend Board approval of the Draft FY 2011/12 TFCA Program; Frascinella made a second. The motion passed unanimously.

4.3 Approval of 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update: Recommendations for the CMP Level of Service Standards regarding Roadway Network and Multimodal Level of Service

Page 1 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.1

Suthanthira requested ACTAC to recommend that the Commission provide input on two options for revising and re-evaluating the threshold for including roadways as principal arterials on the CMP network and a process for using multi-modal level of service standards for CMP purposes. A motion was made by Odumade to recommend Option 2 and approval of the Approach for the Multi-modal level of service standards for CMP purposes; Frascinella made a second. The motion passed unanimously.

Staff requested that items 4.4 and 5.4 be taken together. The Committee agreed.

5.4 Review Project Initiation Document (PID) Statewide Streamlining Plan Bhat reviewed the Project Document (PID) Statewide Streamlining Program. This item was presented for information only.

4.4 Approval of Three-Year Project Initiation Document Strategic Plan for Alameda County Bhat requested ACTAC to recommend that the Commission approve the Three-Year Project Initiation Document (PID) Strategic Plan for Alameda County (FY 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14). A motion was made by Rosevear to recommend that the Commission approve the Three-Year Project Initiation Document (PID) Strategic Plan for Alameda County; Frascinella made a second. The motion passed unanimously.

5.0 NON-ACTION ITEMS 5.1 Review of Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS)/Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP)/Transportation Expenditure Plan Information Walukas provided ACTAC with an update on the Sustainable Community Strategy, Regional Transportation Plan and Countywide Transportation Plan and Transportation Expenditure Plan Information. Walukas informed ACTAC that the Project/Program applications are due to Alameda CTC by April 12, 2011. A draft list of projects and programs recommended for inclusion in the RTP is due to MTC by April 29, 2011. The Draft list of projects and programs will be presented to Alameda CTC committees in May culminating in a public hearing at the May 26, 2011 CWTP-TEP Steering Committee meeting with a recommendation for approval by the Commission on the same day. For comments on Projects, contact Saravana Suthanthira. For comments on Programs, contact Diane Stark. This item was presented for information only.

5.2 Review of the Congestion Management Program: Quarterly Update of the Land Use Analysis Program Element (3rd Quarter) Poeton requested ACTAC to review the list of projects and verify all projects are included and inform staff if projects are complete and confirm that the information presented is accurate. Poeton informed the committee that the deadline for responses is April 29, 2011. This item was presented for information only.

5.3 Monitoring Reports 5.3.1 Review State Transportation Improvement (STIP) Program Timely Use of Funds Report James O’Brien of Advance Project Delivery requested ACTAC to review the project specific information included in the STIP Timely Use of Funds Report, dated April 30, 2011. This item was presented for information only.

Page 2 Page 3 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.1

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 4 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.1

Page 5 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.1

Page 6 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.3

Page 7 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.3

Page 8 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.4

-----Original Message----- From: Art Duffy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:31 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; LA Subject: Good Faith Effort Training

This is being sent to you by Henry Wells, Process Review Engineer in HQ (916) 651-8911. Please direct any questions you have to Mr. Wells. Thank you. - Art

----- Forwarded by Art Duffy/D04/Caltrans/CAGov on 04/15/2011 07:20 AM

Henry Wells/D03/Caltrans/CAGov To DLAE, DBE Coordinators 04/14/2011 02:02 PM cc Mary Johnson/HQ/Caltrans/CAGov@DOT, [email protected], Mohsen Sultan/HQ/Caltrans/CAGov@DOT

Good afternoon - Could you please get the word out to the locals that we will be having a webinar for them on GFEs. See info below.

Course Title Evaluating Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Good Faith Efforts of Bidders May 4 or 5, 2011 (same course offered twice) 1:30 – 3:00 p.m.

Course Description Caltrans Division of Local Assistance issued a new office bulletin, DLA-OB 11-04 – Evaluating and Submitting Good Faith Efforts. When a recipient sets a UDBE goal on a contract, bidders are required to meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts (GFEs) to meet the goal. This session will cover the new requirement to document the GFE decision and the new contract special provision regarding GFEs. Also, you will learn about the various types of GFEs and methods for evaluating them.

Course Objectives Understand the requirements of Caltrans’ new office bulletin regarding evaluating and submitting good faith efforts. Understand the DBE regulations regarding GFEs. Provide helpful tips for evaluating good faith efforts of bidders.

Who should attend Local public agency employees who evaluate GFEs of bidders on Federal-aid contracts.

Webinar contact info and phone number will be given out prior to the event. Thank you.

Henry Wells Local Assistance Process Review Engineer (916) 651-8911 office

Page 9 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.4

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 10 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.5.1

ANNOUNCEMENT: Call for Cycle 3 Federal Safe Routes to School Projects Posted: April 15, 2011 Application Submittal Deadline: July 15, 2011

What is the Federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program? A reimbursement funding program for reducing injuries and fatalities through capital (engineering) projects that improve safety for children in grades K-8 who walk or bicycle to school and through non-infrastructure projects that incorporate education, encouragement, and enforcement activities that are intended to change community behavior, attitudes, and social norms to increase the numbers of children walking and bicycling to school. Evaluation is a key component of the program and is required for both infrastructure and non- infrastructure projects.

How much funding is available? $42 M in federal funds is the targeted funding projected for this call based upon the total amount of programming capacity available in the current Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) to be adjusted if necessary due to a pending federal transportation act.

How are projects selected? Caltrans Districts are apportioned funds based upon student enrollment. District review committees will score and rate applications using standardized evaluation forms furnished by Caltrans Headquarters. Once projects are selected and prioritized, Districts will submit their list to Caltrans Headquarters who will validate District selections and compile a statewide list of selected projects for Director approval. Districts will notify all applicants of the results.

Who is eligible to apply? Any local or regional agency is eligible to apply for SRTS funds. The local or regional agency is the City/County/Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)/Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) who serves as the responsible agency and partner to a Project Sponsor such as the School District, County Public Health Agencies and other non-profit organizations. Federally-recognized Native American Tribes in which schools on tribal lands are benefited may also apply for SRTS funds.

What types of projects are eligible? Capital projects must fall under the broad categories of pedestrian facilities, traffic calming measures, installation of traffic control devices, construction of bicycle facilities, and public outreach/education/enforcement. See guidelines for examples. Up to 10% of the construction cost can fund an education/encouragement/enforcement element in an infrastructure project. Stand alone non-infrastructure projects may include: conducting SRTS workshops, walkability audits, conducting student assemblies for pedestrian and bicycle safety, and developing walking school bus or bicycle train programs to name a few.

Is there a local match required, and what is the maximum amount of funding that can be requested? There is no local match required. $1,000,000 is the maximum amount that can be requested for an infrastructure project and $500,000 for a non-infrastructure project.

Where are the guidelines and applications posted, and how can I get more information? www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/saferoutes.htm

Where do I send my application(s)? The application must be submitted by the on-line application process. In addition, two hard-copies(color preferred) must be sent to your Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) by the deadline. Applications post marked on the deadline are acceptable. DLAE information is available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/dlae.htm

Page 11 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.5.1

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 12 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.6

Name E-mail Address Phone

Arthur L. Dao [email protected] (510) 208-7402

Linda Adams [email protected] (510) 208-7418

Ray Akkawi [email protected] (510) 208-7424

Vivek Bhat [email protected] (510) 208-7430

Liz Brazil [email protected] (510) 208-7419

Yvonne Chan [email protected] (510) 208-7431

Arun Goel [email protected] (510) 208-7404

Stephen Haas [email protected] (510) 208-7427

John Hemiup [email protected] (510) 208-7414

Lei Lam [email protected] (510) 208-7416

Tess Lengyel [email protected] (510) 208-7428

Claudia Leyva [email protected] (510) 208-7408

Sammy Ng [email protected] (510) 208-7425

Gladys V. Parmelee [email protected] (510) 208-7412

Laurel Poeton [email protected] (510) 208-7415

Patricia Reavey [email protected] (510) 208-7422

Patty Seu [email protected] (510) 208-7423

Diane Stark [email protected] (510) 208-7410

Saravana Suthanthira [email protected] (510) 208-7426

Jacki Taylor [email protected] (510) 208-7413

Matthew Todd [email protected] (510) 208-7420

Earlene Vorise [email protected] (510) 208-7411

Beth Walukas [email protected] (510) 208-7405

Victoria Winn [email protected] (510) 208-7429

Bijan Yarjani [email protected] (510) 208-7406

Page 13 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 3.6

Page 14 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2

Date: April 19, 2011 To: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC) From: Diane Stark, Sr. Transportation Planner Subject: Approval of Guaranteed Ride Home Program Annual Evaluation

Recommendations: It is recommended that the Board approve the 2010 Annual Evaluation Report for the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program including the recommendations for next year’s program. The Executive Summary is attached and the draft Evaluation Report is available on the Alameda CTC website. It is recommended that next year, the program: 1. Continue operations and marketing, including maintaining website, monitoring car rental requirement, and conducting employee and employer surveys. 2. Continue to market the reduced minimum employee per employer requirement 3. Implement new program-wide marketing strategies, including co-marketing and social media marketing. 4. Rebrand the GRH Logo and Website to be consistent with the Alameda CTC. 5. Promote the GRH Program to School Districts by working with Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program. 6. Continue research/planning to expand the GRH Program in Alameda County into a comprehensive TDM Program as part of the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan Update. Summary: The Guaranteed Ride Home Program is a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy that encourages people to take alternative modes of transportation to work. It is on of the TDM strategies that Alameda CTC is currently undertaking to meet the State requirements in the Congestion Management Program (CMP). It also contributes towards the Alameda CTC’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required by recent state legislation, SB 375 and AB 32.

Page 15 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2

Goal of Program The purpose of the program is to provide a ride home to registered employees in cases of emergency or unscheduled overtime on days the employee has used an alternative mode of transportation to go to work other than driving alone. Alternative modes include carpools, vanpools, transit, walking or bicycling. By encouraging use of alternative modes, it results in a reduction in the number of single occupancy vehicle trips taken. Based on this objective, the program can be considered a success, as discussed below. Results of Annual Survey and Evaluation The Draft Annual Evaluation Report presents the results of the 2010 evaluation of the program’s administrative functions, statistics on employer and employee participation and trips taken, data from the annual survey of participating employees and employers, and recommendations for program enhancements. Highlights from the 2010 program are presented below:

• The program reduced 3,330 drive alone roundtrips per week, or 173,150 roundtrips per year and saved 9.1 million miles driven over the year. • Compared to last year, the program had nearly the same number of total employers and employees registered in the program. Thirty one new employers registered in the program, which is nearly three times the new employers registered in 2009. This may be due to the reduced number of employees per employer requirement that became effective in 2009 and was marketed in 2010. • Additional marketing efforts were focused on employers with less than 75 employees— reflecting the elimination of the minimum number of employees per employer requirement—and on the South and Central County. Sixty four percent of the new employers who registered (20 of 31) were businesses with less than 75 employees. One new employer was from Union City, representing the only new employer in the South or Central County. • Reducing the minimum number of employees per employer requirement did not add administrative costs, nor number of rides taken for the program. • The number of rides taken (55) was the lowest since the program was initiated. This could be attributed to the downturn in the economy. • Thirty percent of the 55 people who took rides with the program used rental cars instead of cabs (an increase from 18 percent last year), resulting in a $1,778 savings in program costs. • The Board's recommendation to explore charging employers is not being recommended now due to the likeliness to have a high attrition rate based on the survey results and the economy. Recommendations to investigate charging employers at a later date, and also to further investigate a regional GRH program or an expanded TDM program are under consideration as part of the update of the Countywide Transportation Plan.

Page 16 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2

Estimated Program Savings and Highlights

Category 2010 Savings Program Enrollment at end of program year 4,253 Drive Alone Roundtrips Reduced Per Week 3,330 Drive Alone One-Way Trips Reduced Per Week 6,660 Drive Alone Roundtrips Reduced per Weekday 666 Drive Alone One-Way Trips Reduced per Weekday 1,332 Total drive-alone roundtrips reduced per year 173,160 Total drive-alone one-way trips reduced per year 346,320 Guaranteed Ride Home rides taken in 2010 55 Average commute distance of GRH participants in 2010 27.6 Average miles saved per workday 36,763 Annual miles saved per work year (250 days) 9,190,800 Average US vehicle fuel economy (MPG) 22.6 Average gallons of gas saved per workday 1,626.7 Annual gallons of gas saved per work year (250 days) 406,670 Average gas price in 2010 $3.09 Average dollars not spent on gas per workday $5,027 Annual dollars not spent on gas per work year (250 days) $1,256,626

Program Recommendations The status of recommendations for Program enhancements made by the Board in 2010 are found on page ES-12, Figure ES-4, in the attached Executive Summary. Recommendations for 2011 are summarized in the Executive Summary.

Attachments: Attachment A: Executive Summary

Page 17 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 18 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 Attachment A

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROGRAM UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION The Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program has been in operation since April 9, 1998. This report presents the results of the 2010 Program Evaluation and covers program operations during the 2010 calendar year including a comparison with previous years. The evaluation provides information about:

1. The effectiveness of the program’s administration;

2. Statistics on employer and employee participation and rides taken;

3. The program’s success in causing an increase in the use of alternative modes; and

4. The status of Board recommendations made for 2010 and proposed recommendations for 2011.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Alameda County Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program is administered by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC). The Alameda CTC is a newly-formed countywide transportation agency, resulting from a merger of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA).1 Their mission is to plan, fund and deliver a broad spectrum of transportation projects and programs to enhance mobility throughout Alameda County.

The Alameda County GRH Program is funded with Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA) from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The objective of the GRH Program is to maximize modal shift from driving alone to using commute alternatives including transit, carpools, vanpools, bicycling and walking. The goal of changing travel modes is to reduce the number of vehicle trips, decrease traffic congestion, and improve air quality in Alameda County. The GRH Program meets these goals by providing incentives for Alameda County employees to travel to work using alternative modes rather than driving alone. The GRH

1 This merger was completed in 2010.

Page 19 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Program provides a “guaranteed ride home” to any registered employee working for a participating employer in cases of emergency on days the employee has used an alternative mode of transportation to get to work.

All businesses in Alameda County are eligible to participate in the GRH Program. Since it began in 1998, the GRH Program has grown into a smoothly operating program with 206 registered employers and 4,253 registered employees making a commitment to travel to work taking alternative modes to driving alone. This has resulted in a reduction of 3,330 drive alone trips per week. (See Figure ES-1 for highlights over the 12-year course of the Program.) Additionally, in 2010, 38% of participants stated they would not use an alternative travel mode or would use one less frequently without the GRH Program. Furthermore, 33% of participants stated that, with the program, they use alternative modes four or more times a week. The GRH Program provides incentives for commuters to travel using sustainable transportation modes as compared to driving alone.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-2 Page 20 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission

Figure ES–1 Guaranteed Ride Home Program Historical Trends

Trend 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Program Participants

Total Number of 72 100 119 132 127 110 120 131 142 155 188 189 206 Employers New Employers 72 28 19 13 12 14 16 22 12 18 56 12 31 Registered Total Number of 880 1,674 2,265 2,759 2,664 2,785 3,268 3,638 4,107 4,437 4,327 4,249 4,253 Employees New Employees 880 794 591 494 525 710 543 603 550 514 722 406 414 Registered Trip Statistics Total Number of Trips 57 156 168 149 145 151 143 87 107 98 119 72 55 Taken Total Number of Rental N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 10 18 9 18 18 23 13 17 Car Trips Total Number of Taxi Trips N/A N/A N/A N/A 137 141 125 78 89 80 96 59 38 Average Trips per Month 6.3 13 14 12.3 12 12.4 11.8 6.8 8.9 8.2 9.9 6.0 4.6 Average Trip Distance 28.7 34.96 36.9 42.1 42.02 42.9 39.8 42.6 41.8 41.6 39.4 31.5 34.2

(miles) ACTAC $54.5 $65.2 $70.4 $84.0 $88.1 $93.6 Average Trip Cost2 $80.92 $87.78 $89.48 $86.13 $90.49 $69.47 1 5 5 2 8 4 $54.85

Meeting

Rental Car Savings N/A N/A N/A N/A $421 $759 $1,015 $442 $1,221 $1,316 $1,446 $998 $1,778 Agenda Attachment

2

Page A combined average of car rental and taxi costs. 05/03/11 Item 4.2 21 A

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-3 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission

Trend 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number of potential trips 10,04 13,59 16,55 15,98 16,71 5,280 19,608 21,828 24,642 26,622 25,962 25,494 per year 4 0 4 4 0 25,518 Percent of potential trips 1.08 1.55 1.24 0.90% 0.91% 0.90% 0.73% 0.40% 0.43% 0.37% 0.46% 0.28% 0.22% taken each year % % % Survey Results Number of Surveys 215 350 270 346 517 619 658 716 732 728 822 990 Collected 590 Survey Response Rate N/A 21% 12% 13% 19% 22% 20% 20% 18% 16% 19% 23% 14% Percent Who Would Not

Use an Alternative Mode 15% 16% 19% 19% 34% 41% 47% 46% 40% 41% 35% 35% or Would Use Less 38% Frequently without GRH Increase in the Percent of

Those Using Alternative N/A 10% 15% 8% 15% 17% 14% 21% 19% 18% 28% 28% Modes Four or More Times 28% a Week

Number of Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,768 3,946 3,774 3,318 3,709 3,499 3,635 3,102 3,330 Reduced per Week

ACTAC

Meeting Agenda Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.2 22 A

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-4 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

ANNUAL PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS Registration of employers in the GRH Program in 2010 was affected by two opposing influences—the CMA Board’s decision to change the program requirements to allow all Alameda County businesses to enroll, regardless of size, and the downturn in the economy with businesses closing and employers leaving the county. Prior to 2009, employers were required to have at least 75 employees to enroll in the GRH Program. Figure ES-2 shows the new employers that registered along with those who left the program in 2010.

In 2010, 31 new employers enrolled in the program, bringing the number of registered employers to 206. Of the 31 new employers, 20 were in companies with less than 75 employees. Enrollment of new employers had peaked in 2008, when 56 new employers registered due to the program’s partnership with the Emeryville Transportation Management Association (TMA) and the Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA) as well as record high gas prices, leading to more commuters seeking alternative transportation modes.

The 2010 calendar year experienced a slight increase in the number of new registrants compared to 2009, with 414 new employees enrolling in the program (as shown in Figure ES-1). Enrollment continued to increase but not at the high levels in previous years due to hiring freezes and the increase in unemployment associated with the recent economic downturn. Total actively registered participants increased slightly in 2010; from 4,249 in 2009 to 4,253 in 2010.

A number of GRH employers have either gone out of business or decided not to participate in the program because their registered employees no longer work for the company or because of limited staff resources to administer the program. Participant losses were concentrated at employers that either went out of business or relocated to another county. Agilent Technologies Inc. closed their Pleasanton branch in 2010 and relocated to Santa Clara County. NUMMI in Fremont and Cholestech Corporation in Hayward both closed their doors on March 31, 2010. Robert Half International moved their office location on May 22, 2010 from Pleasanton to Bishop Ranch in Contra Costa County. After these businesses were shut down or relocated, 293 employees were removed from the database of actively registered employees in the program (268 employees from NUMMI, 21 employees from Robert Half International, and 4 from Cholestech Corporation). In addition, three employers were removed from the database because no employer contact could be established.

See Figure ES-2 for a summary of new employers and participant losses in 2010.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-5 Page 23 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Figure ES–2 New Employers and Participant Losses (2010) # of Employer Name City Employees New Employers - 2010

Financial Benefits Credit Union Alameda 6 Lockheed Martin Alameda 7 Center for Accessible Technology Berkeley 7

Experience in Software Inc. Berkeley 10 Americans For Safe Access Oakland 12 Elder Care Alliance Alameda 15

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Berkeley 20 State of California, Department of Fair Employment & Oakland 25 Housing Avanguest North American Inc. Pleasanton 25 Broadlane Oakland 32

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Emeryville 40 Newfield Wireless, Inc. Berkeley 40 First Solar Oakland 50

Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP Oakland 50 Hub-Data911 Alameda 50 The College Preparatory School Oakland 50

Ironplanet, Inc. Pleasanton 52 S & C Electric Company Alameda 60 Ratcliff Architects Emeryville 70

511 Rideshare Program Oakland 75 Taylor Engineering Alameda 80 Senela Center Oakland 80

US Treasury - FMS Emeryville 80 E&E Co. LTD Fremont 85 Tri-City Health Center Fremont 185

Doric Group of Companies Alameda 200 Kaiser Permanente Union City Union City 251

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-6 Page 24 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

# of Employer Name City Employees Workday Pleasanton 400 Abbott Diabetes Care Alameda 700 Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc. Dublin 720 Lam Research Corporation Fremont 1000 Employers Who Left GRH Program - 2010

NUMMI Fremont -268 Cholestech Corporation Hayward -4 Robert Half International (moved to Contra Costa County) Pleasanton -21 Hunter Travel Managers Pleasanton -5 State Street California Alameda -3 Agilent Technologies Inc. (moved to Santa Clara County) Pleasanton -3

Based on the fact that each registered participant may take up to six rides in a one-year period, the rate that guaranteed rides are taken is very low. Most program participants take a guaranteed ride home very infrequently or not at all. For example, at the end of 2010, there were a total of 25,518 potential rides based on a total enrollment of 4,253 employees and a maximum of six rides allowed per employee per year. However, only 55 rides were actually taken (approximately 0.22% of potential rides).

As shown in Figure ES-1, the total number of rides taken per year can fluctuate significantly. Despite the availability of the program to all employees in Alameda County, the number of rides taken declined in 2010. It is unknown why the number of rides taken in 2010 decreased by 24%. It could be attributed to the economic downturn and high rates of unemployment in 2009/10.

Of the 7,816 employees who have ever registered for the program at the end of 2010, 7,080 (91%) had never taken a ride. The vast majority of those who have used the program (80%) have only taken one or two rides. This demonstrates that participants see the GRH Program as an “insurance” policy and do not abuse the program or take more rides per year than they need. The program is available if and when an emergency or unscheduled overtime arises and provides participants with peace of mind knowing that even when they do not drive alone, they can get home under unexpected circumstances.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-7 Page 25 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION The program evaluation consisted of an examination of the program’s administrative functions, statistics on employer and employee participation and use, data from the surveys of participating employees, and recommendations for program changes and enhancements. The following sections present the major findings from the evaluation.

Program Administration

Program Operating Principles • The use limitation of six rides per year continues to be appropriate. Very few program participants have reached the limit since the program’s inception. The highest number of trips taken in 2010 by a single participant was three.

• The rental car demonstration program was successfully implemented in October 2002 in the Tri-Valley area (Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton), and countywide in April 2004 to reduce program costs by encouraging use of rental cars with a fixed rate regardless of the number of miles traveled. A new policy went into effect in 2006 requiring participants to use a rental car for any non-emergency trip over 50 miles3. Rental car use accounted for 31% of all 2010 rides. The program realized an estimated savings of approximately $1,700 on ride costs in 2010. Despite the low number of rides taken in 2010, the program had the largest cost savings in rides since the majority of trips over 20 miles were taken by a rental car instead of by taxi. Rental car savings increased from $998 in 2009 to $1,778 in 2010.

Marketing and Promotions • Approximately 20% of program resources are dedicated to marketing and promotion. This time is spent marketing both to employers and their employees in the form of making calls, distributing flyers, and giving presentations and attending events. The program has sought to leverage these resources by relying on participating employers to promote the GRH Program internally, and by seeking co-marketing opportunities with local transit agencies and with organizations that promote commute alternatives such as MTC and local business districts like the Hacienda Business Park.

• In 2009, the program eliminated the eligibility requirement that only employers with 75 or more employees could participate. All Alameda County employers and employees are now eligible for the program. Marketing materials and the website have been updated to reflect this new requirement. The Program Administrator also sent press releases to the Chamber

3 The requirement to use rental cars for non-emergency trips over 50 miles also takes into consideration that for those who do shift work, the rental car companies close at 6:00 p.m.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-8 Page 26 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

of Commerce and attended transportation fairs to inform employers about the new program changes in 2010. Furthermore, program staff continued to form partnerships with TMAs and business associations to more effectively market the program to all employers regardless of size. This change in eligibility requirement resulted in the enrollment of 20 new employers with less than 75 employees in 2010.

• To help increase countywide awareness about the GRH Program, GRH staff developed a Marketing Plan in 2010 that had three focus areas: Companies, Communities and Creative Outlets (see Appendix B). As part of this initiative, staff reached out to various businesses (identified through the East Bay Economic Development Alliance), various Alameda County city staff, as well as other advocacy and non-profit groups that are supportive of alternative modes of transportation.

• GRH has ramped up its efforts for co-marketing with other agencies and groups with similar missions and goals. GRH staff has had correspondence with individuals from AC Transit and Alameda CTC bicycle and pedestrian program. Co-marketing efforts not only expand the reach of GRH marketing efforts in a cost-effective manner, it helps present GRH as a complimentary service to alternative modes of transportation.

• Although the GRH program has been marketed throughout Alameda County, 85% of registered employers are located in North and East County. In order to encourage increased participation in South and Central Alameda County, the GRH Program focused marketing efforts on employers in these areas in 2010. In 2010, the Program Administrator sent letters to the Chamber of Commerce of Newark, San Leandro, Union City, Hayward, and Fremont and has been in contact with city staff from Union City and San Leandro. The Program Administrator also attended a Clean Commute Transportation Fair in San Leandro on April 19, 2010. Despite the targeted marketing efforts, Union City was the only city in South or Central Alameda County to increase GRH enrollment in 2010. Registered businesses in Union City increased from two to three in 2010 (50% increase). Although no new employers in San Leandro enrolled in the GRH program in 2010, several have enrolled in 2011 as a result of increased marketing efforts. This increase will be reported in the 2011 annual report. Overall, there was a decrease in registered businesses in South and Central Alameda County in 2010, likely due to the downturn in the economy.

• The availability of the marketing materials in electronic format via the internet or email continues to be a useful and inexpensive tool for promoting the program.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-9 Page 27 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

• The website is updated to include changes in the program, such as the rental car program, new eligibility requirements, online registration, and to clarify the program, as necessary, such as providing a clear description of the instant enrollment program.

Employer and Employee Participation

Employer and Employee Registrations • A total of 31 new businesses and 414 employees registered for the program in 2010. Twenty of the newly registered businesses in 2010 had fewer than 75 employees.

• Despite the enrollment activity, the total number of registered participants in the program increased by only 1% since the previous year. According to employer contacts, this is due to the downturn in the economy and company downsizing.

• Even with following the CMA Board’s direction to focus a new marketing effort on south and central Alameda County in 2010, north and east Alameda County continue to be the areas with the most employers enrolled in the program. These areas account for over 85% of all registered businesses. This can be attributed to the large concentration of employers in Downtown Oakland and our partnerships with the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, the Emeryville Transportation Management Association (TMA) in Emeryville, and the Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA) in Berkeley.

Rides Taken • From the program’s inception in 1998 through 2010, a total of 1,516 rides (1,379 taxi rides and 137 rental car rides) have been taken. A total of 55 rides were taken during the 2010 calendar year for an average of approximately 5 rides per month. 2010 had the lowest number of rides were taken since the program inception in 1998. This could be due to the economy and job losses.

• Ninety-one percent of the employees enrolled have never taken a trip. This demonstrates the “insurance” nature of the program and shows that participants do not abuse the program. Of the employees who have taken a trip since the program inception (1998), 80% have taken only one or two rides.

• The two most common reasons to take a guaranteed ride home in 2010 were “personal illness” (33% of rides) and “unscheduled overtime” (16% of trips).

• Those who carpool or vanpool are more likely to use a guaranteed ride home trip than those who use other alternative commute modes. Sixty-one percent of guaranteed rides home were used by car- and vanpoolers.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-10 Page 28 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

• The average trip distance increased by 9% in 2010 compared to 2009. The average trip distance for all trips in 2010 was 34.2 miles.

• The average taxi trip distance declined 27% to 20.1 miles and the average rental car trip distance increased 25% to approximately 65.9 miles. Since car rental trips are a flat fee, their increase in mileage helped to contribute towards cost savings for the program.

• The average taxi trip cost decreased 23% in 2010; from $71.44 in 2009 to $55.01 in 2010 due to shorter taxi trip distances. When factoring in rental car trips, the average trip cost was $54.85. This large decrease in cost was due to an increase in rental car usage for longer trips. Friendly Cab, serving Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville, provides a majority of the GRH rides.

• The cost of a rental car trip is $55.00. It is estimated that the use of rental cars in 2010 saved $1,778 in trip costs. Nearly one out of three trips taken was with a rental car.

Employee Commute Patterns • The most common trip-origin cities are Oakland, Pleasanton, and Fremont. The most common trip-destination cities are Oakland, Manteca, and Modesto.

• The most common trip destination county is Alameda County, followed by Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County.

Employee Survey The 2010 survey was distributed and completed primarily online. GRH staff attempted to contact all employer representatives (some were non-responsive despite repeated attempts) to request their assistance with the distribution of the survey. When employers were not available to distribute the survey, GRH staff contacted employees directly with the survey. Of the 4,253 employees currently enrolled in the program, 590 completed the survey, a 14% response rate – similar to previous years, but lower than 2009. Of the surveys, 98.6% were completed online. Survey respondents represent 105 (out of 206) different participating employers. The results of the survey follow.

Use of Alternative Modes The Guaranteed Ride Home Program continues to be successful in encouraging the use of alternative modes. According to 2010 survey responses:

• When asked how important GRH was in their decision to stop driving alone, 63% of respondents who used to drive alone said that it was at least somewhat important.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-11 Page 29 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

• Ninety percent of respondents stated that they think that the GRH Program encourages people to use alternative modes more often. Only 55% of respondents, however, stated that the program encourages them personally to use alternative modes more often.

• If the GRH Program were not available, the majority (64%) reported that they would continue to use an alternative mode at the same frequency that they currently do.

• Survey results suggest that the program may have helped encourage participants to try alternative modes and now that they are in the habit of using alternative modes, they would continue using them even if the program became unavailable.

• The survey asked respondents how they traveled to work at present and before they registered for the GRH Program. Both before and after the program, the most common modes were driving alone, BART and bus. Drive alone rides, however, declined by nearly 50% after registering with the GRH Program, while alternative mode use increased.

• Using these survey findings, we were able to extrapolate the impact of the program on travel behavior of all participants. The program reduces an estimated 3,330 single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips per week.

Other Commute Characteristics • Commute distances of program participants are generally 50 miles or less (90%).

• Most program participants travel to work during the peak commute hours of 7-9 AM in the mornings (64%) and 4-6 PM in the evenings (75%).

Customer Service Ratings The annual evaluation survey includes two questions to evaluate participant’s level of satisfaction with the customer service provided in the program. Additional information on service satisfaction is collected in the survey that participants return after they have taken a ride.

• The administrative functions of the GRH Program continue to receive very high ratings for the quality of customer service, consistent with previous years’ evaluations.

• In 2010, 31% of respondents rated Clarity of Information as Excellent and 44% as Good. These numbers were very similar to 2009 results.

• Passengers were very positive in their evaluation of the transportation services provided through GRH with 90% of users rating the services as “excellent” or “good”.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-12 Page 30 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Program Value This year’s survey asked participants how much they value the GRH Program compared to other transportation benefits they receive.

• Sixty-three percent reported that the program was as valuable as or more valuable than other transportation benefits they receive at work. Thirteen percent reported that they receive no other transportation benefits at work. Participants may value the program highly because it is a free commuter benefit offered by the County during an economic downturn.

Employer Survey In addition to employee participants, employer representatives are also surveyed annually. Of the 206 employers currently enrolled in the program, 63 surveys were completed, resulting in a 31% response rate. New questions were added to the employer survey this year asking how much employers would be willing to pay towards the program and their attitudes toward Transportation Demand Management (TDM) benefits. The results are summarized under “Program Value,” below.

Use of Alternative Modes • The survey asked the employer representatives how important the program is in encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes more often. A large majority (87%) reported that they feel participation in the program at least somewhat encourages more alternative mode use.4

• The survey asked respondents if their companies offered additional commuter benefits to employees. Most employers (84%) reported that they provide other transportation subsidy programs besides the GRH Program. The most popular benefits were bicycle parking and Commuter Checks.

Program Management • The survey asked respondents how long they have managed the program for their company. In 2010, 77% of respondents have been with GRH for one or more years, compared to 74% in 2009 and only 57% in 2008. When GRH staff contacted the employer representatives this year, GRH staff did not encounter a large number of employers who had experienced employer representative turnover.

4 Employers were asked for their opinion regarding if the GRH Program encourages employees to use alternative commute modes more often. Employers did not take a poll or individual survey of their registered employees.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-13 Page 31 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

• When asked about the workload that GRH presents, all employers reported that their workload was “manageable” or the program is “not much work”.

• One of the important features of the program is the instant enrollment voucher which allows persons not registered in the program to become instantly enrolled and receive a guaranteed ride home in case of emergencies. Eighty-two percent of employer representatives stated that they have never issued an instant enrollment voucher, a lower number than 2009 when 91% of respondents stated that they had not issued an instant enrollment voucher. This shows an increase in employer awareness about the instant enrollment vouchers.

Customer Service Ratings The survey includes two questions to evaluate the employer representatives’ level of satisfaction with the customer service provided in the program in 2010.

• “Clarity of information” provided by program staff received very high ratings, with 81% of respondents stating that information was “excellent” or “good”. This is a slight decrease from 2009 when 88% of employers stated that clarity of information was either excellent or good. The decrease in perceived clarity of information in 2010 could be attributed to the changes in program eligibility requirements to allow all Alameda County employees to register in the program and new online registration.

Rental Car Awareness Starting in 2007, the annual survey started asking employer representatives about their awareness of the rental car requirement for rides over 50 miles.

• Over three fourths (79%) of employer representatives stated that they were aware of the requirement. In 2007, less than half of employer representatives knew about the rental car requirement, in 2008, 69% of employers knew about the requirement, and in 2009, 72% of employers knew about the requirement. This shows that the marketing outreach for the rental car requirement has worked to increase its awareness.

Program Value The employer survey asked questions specifically about the perceived value of the GRH program compared to other transportation benefits offered at their workplace.

• Sixty percent of respondents stated that they thought that their employees value the GRH Program as much as or more than other transportation benefits offered by their employer. A quarter of respondents stated that their employer does not offer any other transportation benefits.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-14 Page 32 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Employer representatives were asked if they were interested in offering Transportation Demand Management (TDM) benefits to their employees. A follow up question also specifically asked about willingness to pay to participate in a comprehensive TDM program.

• The majority of employer representatives (77%) stated they would be interested in offering their employees additional TDM benefits. Most employers reported that they provide some type of commuter benefits in addition to GRH. The most popular programs were bicycle parking and Commuter Checks.

• Employer representatives were asked to rank the top three TDM benefits that they would be interested in offering their employees, other than the GRH Program. As their first choice, the majority of employer representatives would like to offer their employees free or discounted transit passes (30%) or Commuter Checks (25%). As their second choice, the majority of employers listed telecommuting/flextime (22%) and again Commuter Checks (19%) and free or discounted transit passes (19%). As their third choice, employers would like to offer preferential carpool/vanpool parking (19%) and telecommuting (19%). Twenty-three percent of participants stated they are not interested in offering TDM benefits to their employee.

• Respondents were asked a set of questions that focused on their company’s willingness to pay to participate in the GRH Program if it were incorporated into a countywide TDM Program. Sixty-five percent of respondents stated that their continued participation would be “very unlikely” or “unlikely” if the program charged an annual fee to be part of a TDM Program. Thirty-five percent of employers thought that their participation would either be “very likely” or “likely.” This is a five percent increase in willingness to pay from last year, when 30% stated that their participation would either be “very likely” or “likely.” This could be a sign that employers may be warming up to the idea of financially contributing to be a part of a comprehensive TDM program.

• Employers were asked if their company paid a fee, would they be more likely to pay a flat annual fee or per registered employer to be part of a countywide TDM program. Twenty percent stated they would rather pay a fee per registered employee and only 3% said they would rather pay a flat annual fee. Larger employers may be more willing to pay a set annual fee, while smaller employers were more willing to pay per registered employee, since it is probable that larger companies would use more trips on an annual basis as compared to smaller ones. Last year, 13% of employers said they would be willing to pay a flat annual fee and 17% said they would be willing to pay a fee per registered employee.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-15 Page 33 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

• The lack of willingness to pay an annual fee was mostly attributed by employer representatives to the current state of the economy.

Program Savings The Guaranteed Ride Home Program’s goal is to reduce single occupancy vehicle commute trips through encouraging alternative transportation use. Based on the annual employee survey results, the program eliminated approximately 3,330 single-occupancy vehicle roundtrips per week or 1,332 one-way trips per weekday. Based on the average reported commute distance by GRH participants and the number of registered participants, the GRH Program eliminates approximately 9.2 million vehicle miles from roadways annually.5 It is estimated that the program saved participants approximately $1.2 million annually on fuel expenses in 2010.6

5 Based on 1,332 reported reduced weekday one-way trips by participants from the annual survey, 250 days in a work year, and the average reported commute distance of 27.6 miles 6 Based on the calculated number of annual miles reduced, the annual US vehicle fuel economy reported by the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (22.6 MPG), and the average Bay Area fuel price per gallon reported by MTC in 2010 ($3.09)

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-16 Page 34 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Figure ES–2 Estimated Program Savings and Highlights in 2010

Category 2010 Savings Program Enrollment at end of program year 4,253

Drive Alone Roundtrips Reduced per Week 3,330

Drive Alone One-Way Trips Reduced per Week 6,660

Drive Alone Roundtrips Reduced per Weekday 666

Drive Alone One-Way Trips Reduced per Weekday 1,332

Total drive-alone roundtrips reduced per Year 173,160

Total drive-alone one-way trips reduced per Year 346,320

Guaranteed Ride Home rides taken in 2010 55

Average commute distance of GRH participants in 2010 27.6

Average miles saved per workday 36,763

Annual miles saved per work year (250 days) 9,190,800

Average US vehicle fuel economy (MPG) 22.6

Average gallons of gas saved per workday 1,626.7

Annual gallons of gas saved per work year (250 days) 406,670

Average gas price in 2010 $3.09

Average dollars not spent on gas per workday $5,027

Annual dollars not spent on gas per work year (250 days) $1,256,626

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-17 Page 35 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

PROGRAM UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC), formerly including Alameda County CMA Guaranteed Ride Home Program, has been successful in bringing about a modal shift from driving alone to alternative transportation modes. Data from this year’s participant survey indicate that the program is continuing to reduce the number of drive-alone trips made within the county by eliminating one of the significant barriers to alternative mode use – namely, the fear of being unable to return home in the event of an emergency.

Summary of 2010 Evaluation Report Recommendations Last year, the CMA Board made recommendations (shown in Figure ES-3) for the 2010 GRH Program. The recommendations for the 2010 GRH Program and their outcomes are presented below. A more detailed description of the 2010 recommendation outcomes is presented in Chapter 6.

Figure ES–3 Summary of 2010 Evaluation Report Recommendations

Recommendation Outcome/Status

1. Continue operations and GRH staff continually markets the program and updates the website. marketing, including The employee and employer surveys for the 2010 program evaluation were maintaining website and completed in March 2011. Results are included in Chapters 4 and 5 of this conducting employee and report. employer surveys

2. Continue monitoring and GRH staff continued monitoring and marketing the requirement to take non- marketing the 50+ mile car emergency rides greater than 50 miles with rental cars. Marketing was rental requirement focused on informing new employers and employees about the requirement. This included continuing to telephone and e-mail participants who use the program and live over 50 miles from their workplace to remind them of the program requirement and attach reminders to all vouchers about the requirement. In 2010, 17 of the 55 trips taken were by rental car. This represents 31% of all trips taken in 2010. Both the employee and the employer surveys included information and questions about the rental car requirement. As a result of these efforts, rental car requirement awareness among employer representatives increased from 49% in 2007, to 69% in 2008, to 72% in 2009, to 79% in 2010.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-18 Page 36 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Recommendation Outcome/Status

3. Continue to focus on By working with Chambers of Commerce, business associations and city registering businesses in staff in South and Central County cities, the GRH Program attempted to South and Central increase awareness and participation in these areas. GRH staff conducted Alameda County. targeted outreach to several cities and businesses that fall in this area. The Program Administrator worked with the City of San Leandro Office of Business Development to contact all businesses near the Links Shuttle route. Every employer was sent a personalized letter and GRH brochure to encourage them to enroll in the program. Since the mailing, several new employers in San Leandro have signed up for the GRH program in 2011, which will be shown in the 2011 report. GRH staff also established a point of contact in cities that are currently not enrolled in the program (such as Newark and Union City). Despite the targeted marketing efforts, Union City was the only city in South or Central Alameda County to increase GRH enrollment in 2010. Registered businesses in Union City increased from two to three in 2010 (50% increase). Overall, there was a decrease in registered businesses in South and Central Alameda County, likely due to the downturn in the economy. For example, the closing of Nummi resulted in a decrease of 268 employees registered in the program. As described in Chapter 3, South and Central County are more suburban than other parts of Alameda County and most businesses have extensive free parking available for employees. Thus it is more challenging to convince businesses in South and Central County to register for the GRH Program.

4. Continue to market the Based on the results of the comprehensive program evaluation reduced minimum (Eisen/Letunic, 2009), which found that the GRH Program was the only employee per employer one of 12 nationwide programs that had a minimum number of employees requirement. per employer requirement, the CMA Board recommended eliminating the employer size requirement and opening the program to any employer in the county, regardless of size. In 2010, 20 out of the 31 new employers who registered had 75 or fewer employees. In 2009, 6 out of the 12 new employers who registered had fewer than 75 employees. With increased marketing efforts in 2010, the number of new employers, especially smaller employers, grew substantially. As with most programmatic changes, even with marketing, there is often a lag time between initiating a new program change and its increased use. GRH staff worked with Chambers of Commerce and created press releases to advertise the change in the program and continue to form partnerships with business associations throughout the county to more effectively market the program to all employers regardless of size. The GRH website was also updated to reflect this programmatic change.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-19 Page 37 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Recommendation Outcome/Status

5. Implement new program- To help increase countywide awareness about the GRH Program, GRH wide marketing strategies. staff developed a Marketing Plan in 2010 that had three focus areas: Companies, Communities and Creative Outlets (see Appendix B). As part of this initiative, staff reached out to various businesses (identified through the East Bay Economic Development Alliance), various Alameda County city staff, as well as other advocacy and non-profit groups that are supportive of alternative modes of transportation. GRH staff reached out to Chambers of Commerce in Alameda County cities and requested to have our marketing text added to their e-blasts. Some of the various chambers produce print newsletters. After investigating the cost-effectiveness of print media ads, it was decided that GRH would not pursue print ads at this time. In addition, staff reached out to several departments of education as a way to reach out to educational staff in Alameda County schools and higher education institutions. With regard to other creative marketing efforts, GRH has ramped up its efforts for co-marketing with other agencies and groups with similar missions and goals. GRH staff has had correspondence with individuals from AC Transit and Alameda CTC. Co-marketing efforts not only expand the reach of GRH marketing efforts in a cost-effective manner, it helps present GRH as a complimentary service to alternative modes of transportation. In addition to these activities, GRH staff attended several marketing fairs and promoted GRH’s mission to numerous individuals in the cities of Berkeley, San Leandro, Emeryville, Oakland and Pleasanton.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-20 Page 38 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Recommendation Outcome/Status

6. Create a new GRH This recommendation was made to help reduce the administrative time database with information associated with running the GRH Program and to make it easier for stored on-line instead of in employers and employees to enroll in the program. In 2010 the database Access Database. was updated to interface the online registration form with an online database. Once an employee or employer fills out the registration form online, it is automatically entered into the GRH database in real time – eliminating the need for GRH staff to re-enter the same information. This change not only saves staff time, but it also allowed new registrants to be enrolled in the system more easily and efficiently. An automatic e-mail is sent to each new applicant when they register, directing them to the liability waiver form. Time saved from data entry can then be spent on marketing and customer service. The database update was completed in two phases. The first phase of the update allowed the database to be synced up with the website and also included e-mail authentication and an electronic signature for the liability waiver. This facilitates the ease of registration and reduces paper waste. The second phase of the project allowed online registration for employers, similar to the new employee registration. Employers can also log-in and access a list of the employees from their company who are enrolled in the GRH program. This allows the employer representative the ability to update employee contact information and indicate which employees have left the company. It also provides valuable information to employers about the commute behavior of their employees.

7. Continue to investigate In 2009 and 2010, the CMA Board recommended that the CMA work with implementing a regional MTC to investigate initiating a regionwide GRH program. This has the GRH Program with MTC potential of reducing total indirect costs--such as administration, marketing and all nine counties in the and overhead--across the merged programs. CMA staff presented this region. concept to MTC and the Bay Area counties at the Regional Rideshare Committee in 2009 to discuss the regions’ interest in this option. At that time, the counties were receptive to the concept of joint efficiencies while expressing concerns about how this could be accomplished while maintaining the current, well established programs with their different eligibility requirements and funding. As part of the current update to the Countywide Transportation Plan, Alameda CTC is reviewing options to enhance our Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to be responsive to Climate Action legislation (SB 375 and AB 32). The Countywide Transportation Plan will be adopted in 2012 with a draft available fall 2011. The updated Plan will include a range of TDM alternatives, including Alameda CTC’s current GRH Program and bicycle and pedestrian programs, and other TDM options that could be undertaken at a countywide or regional level. The Board will review these options as part of the Countywide Transportation Plan.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-21 Page 39 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Recommendation Outcome/Status

8. Continue Unlike other GRH programs throughout the Bay Area and the U.S., the research/planning to CMA GRH Program was the only one that does not include other expand the GRH Program transportation demand management (TDM) programs. However, since in Alameda County into a merging with ACTIA as Alameda CTC, the new agency also has bicycle comprehensive TDM and pedestrian TDM programs and has been-co-marketing them with the Program. GRH program. Including the GRH program as part of an even more comprehensive TDM program would result in further economies of scale for marketing and administration. As part of the Climate Action efforts the CMA is pursuing to address greenhouse gas emissions requirements through AB 32 and SB 375,) the CMA is including a range of TDM alternatives in the update of the Countywide Transportation Plan (see above). The GRH Program, whether in Alameda County or regionwide, is being considered as part of these efforts. Additional TDM measures to be considered could include: ridematching, financial incentives for carpooling and vanpooling, discounted transit passes, personalized transit itineraries, subsidized bicycle parking racks and lockers, bicycle commuting maps and promotions and other marketing strategies.

9. Investigate alternative The GRH program has been funded by the Air District TFCA funds since funding sources for the 1998. To diversify program funding and address the CMA Board’s GRH Program. concerns about having employers contribute towards the cost of the program to reduce congestion and air emissions, the CMA Board recommended investigating methods of introducing employer contributions into the program. For the past two years, as part of the GRH annual employer survey, employers were asked if their company would be willing to pay if the GRH program were part of a countywide TDM program. In 2010, 35% of employers stated that their participation would either be “very likely” or “likely” to continue if they contributed towards the program. This is a five percent increase in willingness to pay from the previous year, when 30% stated that their participation would either be “very likely” or “likely.” Although this is an increase, the majority of employers would still not be willing to pay for the GRH program now, even if it were part of a countywide TDM program. This response may be attributed to the timing coinciding with layoffs and a downturn in the economy. The update to the Countywide Transportation Plan, which is in process, includes sections on alternative financing and on TDM alternatives. The Alameda CTC will be reviewing the draft Plan update fall 2011 and the final in 2012.

2011 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this evaluation report and the comprehensive program evaluation completed in February 2009 (Eisen/Letunic), Alameda CTC staff recommends the following course of action for 2011:

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-22 Page 40 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

Recommendations for 2011 1. Continue operations and marketing, including maintaining website, monitoring car rental requirement, and conducting employee and employer surveys.

Operations of the GRH program should continue in 2011 including database maintenance, general marketing, monitoring the car rental requirement, and maintaining the website. GRH staff should continue monitoring and marketing the requirement to take non-emergency rides greater than 50 miles with rental cars. Marketing should be focused on informing new employers and employees about the requirement. This effort should include continuing to telephone and e-mail participants who used the program for non-emergency rides and live over 50 miles from their workplace to remind the participant of the program requirement and attach reminders to all vouchers about the requirement.

Employee and employer surveys should be completed annually as part of the annual program evaluation report. The surveys for the 2011 evaluation should be scheduled for late January/early February 2012.

2. Continue to market the countywide employer eligibility.

In February 2009, the CMA Board recommended eliminating the employer size requirement and opening the program to any employer in the county, regardless of size. The recommendation was based on the results of the comprehensive program evaluation which found that of 12 GRH programs nationwide, only the Alameda County GRH program had a minimum number of employees per employer requirement. Eliminating the minimum number of employees per employer requirement enabled 20 new businesses to register in the GRH Program in 2010. Since this change was introduced in 2009, it is necessary to continue to increase program awareness among smaller businesses in Alameda County in order to further encourage mode shifts from driving alone to alternative forms of transportation.

3. Implement new program-wide marketing strategies, including co-marketing and social media marketing.

GRH staff should continue to work with Chambers of Commerce and create press releases to advertise the program to all employers in Alameda County and continue to form partnerships with TMAs and business associations to more effectively market the program to all employers regardless of size or location. In addition to partnership and press releases, new marketing strategies such as co-marketing and social media marketing, can be used to reach out to new potential employers throughout Alameda County.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-23 Page 41 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

A co-marketing strategy can be used to work with other agencies and groups who have similar missions and goals, such as AC Transit and Alameda CTC bicycle and pedestrian program. Co-marketing efforts will not only expand the reach of GRH marketing efforts in a cost-effective manner, it will help present GRH as a complimentary service to alternative modes of transportation, which is very effective in offering a packing of alternative modes of travel. Co-marketing involves co-promoting organizational missions at marketing events and in press releases.

A second strategy is to use social media tools to help the GRH Program stay in touch with businesses and reach out to new users. Social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter, are commonly used by other programs and services in Alameda County, including Safe Routes to School Alameda County, Oakland Broadway Shuttle, BART, and Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry. In addition, many large and small employers use social media to make announcements to their employees and to announce community events, such as Transportation and Health Fairs. Social media tools would help marketing and co-marketing efforts become more effective, allowing GRH to promote events in Alameda County and stay in communication with major employers and other program partners.

4. Rebrand the GRH Logo and Website to be consistent with the Alameda CTC.

The Alameda CTC was formed in 2010 as a result of a merger of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA). The GRH Program was previously administered by the Alameda County CMA. All of the printed program materials, logo, and website contain the words “Alameda County CMA Guaranteed Ride Home.” Since all program materials have to be updated to reflect the new organizational change, it is recommended that GRH rebrand the logo and website to be more consistent with the look and feel of Alameda CTC website. A consistent look and feel will better integrate the GRH Program with Alameda CTC and will show users that GRH is part of a larger countywide transportation agency.

5. Promote the GRH Program to School Districts by working with Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program.

The Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) provider, TransForm, has worked with over 150 schools in the county and has recently started to promote SchoolPool (a 511.org resource) to local schools. The GRH Program compliments these programs and can be used to encourage teachers and staff to use alternative forms of transportation to commute to work (transit, carpool, vanpool, bike, or walk). In 2011, efforts should be made to coordinate outreach activities to promote awareness of the GRH Program to teachers and staff through

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-24 Page 42 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION | 2010 | DRAFT Alameda County Transportation Commission Attachment A

the SR2S Program. Since Transform has already established contacts in schools throughout the county, GRH Staff can work with Transform to contact an employer representative for each school.

6. Continue research/planning to expand the GRH Program in Alameda County into a comprehensive TDM Program as part of the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan Update.

Including the GRH program as part of a comprehensive TDM program would result in economies of scale for marketing and administration. A comprehensive TDM package that includes the GRH program is being included in the update of the Countywide Transportation Plan. These efforts are part of Alameda CTC’s goals to contribute towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with state legislation (AB 32 and SB 375).

The GRH Program, whether in Alameda County or regionwide, is being considered part of these efforts. TDM measures could include: ridematching, financial incentives for carpooling and vanpooling, discounted transit passes, personalized transit itineraries, subsidized bicycle parking racks and lockers, bicycle commuting maps and promotions and other marketing strategies.

Continuation of this discussion is timely and coincides with the upcoming updates of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP). To inform the CWTP, CTC is updating the Countywide Transportation Plan with a discussion of a range of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternatives, including the GRH Program, which could be undertaken at a countywide or regional level.

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ES-25 Page 43 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.2 Attachment A

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 44 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3

DATE: April 27, 2011

TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC)

FROM: Beth Walukas, Deputy Director of Planning Tess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Policy, Public Affairs and Legislation

SUBJECT: Approval of Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP)/ Transportation Expenditure Plan Project and Program Submittal List

Recommendations ACTAC is requested to recommend that the Board:

(1) Approve the attached list of programmatic categories with example projects and programs identified (Tables 1 and 2) and the draft list of projects (Table 3) as those to be evaluated in the CWTP transportation plan investment packages and in the RTP performance assessment; and

(2) Direct staff to forward both the programmatic and project lists to MTC by the May 27, 2011 deadline.

These programs and projects will be used by Alameda CTC and MTC staff respectively in the first round of evaluating transportation investments in the CWTP and the RTP to determine how they perform against adopted performance measures and targets including greenhouse gas reduction targets and a sustainable communities strategy target.

Summary Since summer 2010, staff has been working through the Steering Committee and the Technical and Community Advisory Working Groups to update the Countywide Transportation Plan from which a potential Sales Tax Transportation Expenditure Plan will be developed. The results of the CWTP will be used to inform the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update that includes the development of the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) as mandated by AB 32 and SB 375. This item summarizes the concurrent RTP and CWTP Call for Projects and Programs process and outcomes and asks the Commission for several actions as summarized above.

Page 45 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3

Discussion Call for Project Process In support of the development of the RTP, MTC released a Call for Projects and Programs on February 14, 2011. As part of the Call, each Congestion Management Agency was requested to coordinate project submittals from its county and assist with public outreach. Because Alameda CTC is in the process of updating its CWTP and is developing a New Sales Tax Transportation Expenditure Plan, the same Call is also being used for these countywide planning purposes.

The CWTP update effort is concurrent with the RTP and will be used to inform the RTP. A draft list of projects and programs recommended for inclusion in the RTP is due to MTC by April 29, 2011. The CWTP-TEP Steering Committee is being requested to review the draft list at its meeting on April 28, 2011 and recommend that it be forwarded to MTC by the deadline. The Draft list of projects and programs will be presented to Alameda CTC committees and advisory groups in May culminating in a public hearing at the May 26, 2011 CWTP-TEP Steering Committee meeting with a recommendation for approval by the Commission on the same day. The final list, with any modifications, is due to MTC on May 27, 2011.

Public Outreach Staff has received input on transportation needs from the public in February and March at five public meetings held throughout the County, through the Alameda CTC administrative and advisory committee meetings, and through an on-line and in-person toolkit questionnaire. Over 1,600 people in Alameda County provided input on the CWTP-TEP either by participating in a workshop (188), receiving a presentation through the Outreach Toolkit (724), or participating online (693). Additionally, a telephone survey of Alameda County voters was done in March. A summary of the public participation and survey findings is found on the Alameda CTC website. The input received through the public outreach process was used in developing the draft lists of programs and projects recommended for evaluation in the CWTP and RTP.

Program and Project Screening All programs and projects received from the public outreach process and applications submitted by public agency sponsors were divided into two groups: a) Programmatic: capital projects and programs that are not capacity increasing, are not subject to an air quality conformity analysis, and cannot be modeled b) Projects: capital projects that are capacity increasing, are subject to an air quality conformity analysis, and need to be modeled

This distinction is important because projects that can be modeled need to provide much more detailed information in the application process than programmatic projects that will be quantitatively and qualitatively assessed using other methods.

The programs and projects were further divided in to two additional groups: (a) those with project sponsors and (b) those without project sponsors. Approximately, 300 project/program applications were received from project sponsors by the April 12, 2011 Alameda CTC due date. The programmatic categories (not the individual projects within them) and projects, shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and discussed in more detail below, were then screened to ensure they met the goals of CWTP and were of region wide or area wide significance. Programs and projects that do not have project sponsors at this time are shown in Tables 4 (projects) and 5 (programs). The combined list of

2 Page 46 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3

programs and projects shown in all five tables were circulated to Alameda CTC Committees and advisory groups in April in an effort to identify project sponsors. Many of the projects and programs without sponsors identified in Tables 4 and 5 are suggestions that could potentially be included in on- going or future studies or are already included in existing plans (e.g., bicycle and pedestrian plans). These lists will be kept for reference throughout the development of the CWTP and staff will provide comments on which ones should be considered for future study at the May meeting. Note Table 5 also includes projects listed in the 2008 CWTP that are being dropped.

Screening Outcomes Applications for a total of $25.3 billion in programs and projects were received as follows: $9.4 billion in programs, $7.6 billion in countywide/local projects, and $8.3 billion in regional projects. These amounts represent total cost of a project or program. As part of the Call, MTC assigned Alameda County an initial funding target of $11.76 billion. This amount is combined with other sources to fund programs and projects in Alameda County. MTC is currently developing more refined financial forecasts, which are anticipated to be available in late summer and are expected to be much less than the $11.76 billion.

This means that for this first round of evaluation, there is flexibility to include Alameda County programs and projects in the performance assessment to determine how they perform and to identify the top performing programs and projects. For the initial evaluation, staff intends to evaluate all projects and programs in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the CWTP-TEP analysis during the months May and June with results available for discussion in July. This process will be accomplished through the CWTP-TEP CAWG, TAWG and Steering Committee.

Concurrently, MTC will also be conducting a performance assessment of programs and projects for the RTP and has requested a list of projects and programs from Alameda County that fit within the $11.76 billion funding budget. A draft RTP submittal, accepted by the CWTP-TEP Steering Committee, will be forwarded to MTC by the due date April 29, 2011 with the following components:

• For programmatic categories: As stated above, applications received for programmatic projects totaled $9.4 billion and represented over 160 applications (Table 2). In the 2008 CWTP, approximately $3.5 billion in funding was identified for programs. Staff estimated projected total need for each of the categories for informational purposes, which is approximately $50.8 billion. Because programs support the development of the SCS, it was recommended that the amount of funding assigned to programs be doubled from $3.5 billion to $7.0 billion. This represents 60% of the $11.76 discretionary funding target being assigned to the 15 program categories shown in Table 1 and the sample programmatic projects shown in Table 2. The distribution of the funding among the categories and which projects in programs should be funded will be determined as part of the evaluation of programs and projects being done for the CWTP and RTP in May and June.

• For countywide local projects: The total discretionary and vision funding request for the 84 projects is $1.5 billion and $4.0 billion respectively for a total request of $5.5 billion. It was recommended that the remaining 40% or $4.76 billion of the $11.76 discretionary funding target be assigned to the countywide local projects shown in Table 3.

3 Page 47 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3

• For regional projects: It is recommended that these Bay Area Region/Multi-county projects be submitted to MTC separately. These 11 projects, submitted by regional agencies (e.g., BART, AC Transit, Caltrans), are shown in Table 3 and total $8.2 billion of which $765 million is discretionary and is assumed to be from the regional discretionary budget. These projects serve a regional need.

Schedule and Next Steps • April 29, 2011: Forward draft lists to MTC. • May 27, 2011: After committee and advisory group review, forward final lists to MTC. • May/June 2011: Using the projects and programs identified in this Call, conduct the first round CWTP evaluation of transportation investment packages with a land use scenario that is representative of an SCS. Concurrently, MTC will be conducting its performance assessment. • July 2011: Present CWTP evaluation results. • August 2011: Conduct second evaluation using a constrained land use and transportation network/policy scenario. • September 2011: First draft of the CWTP and first preliminary Transportation Expenditure Plan list. • Fall 2011: Public outreach and second draft CWTP and first draft TEP

Attachments Attachment A: Table 1. Draft Programmatic Category Estimate for Alameda County Attachment B: Table 2. Draft Public Agency Program Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County Attachment C: Table 3. Draft Public Agency Project Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP- TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County Attachment D: Table 4. Public Outreach Project Listings for which sponsors have not been identified and 2008 CWTP projects that have been dropped Attachment E: Table 5. Program Listings from Outreach Activities for which sponsors have not been identified

4 Page 48 Table 1: DRAFT Programmatic Category Estimates ALAMEDA COUNTY

2011 RTP/ CWTP Current Historical Call for projects - Projection of Program Categories distribution* Estimated Costs need**

1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (RT ID# 240381) $397 $599 $2,600 Includes county- and local-level bike and pedestrian improvements

2. Transit Enhancements, Expansion and Safety Program (RTP ID# 240382) $979 $2,187 $7,700 Includes Alameda County share of systemwide improvements. Excludes elements of regional significance, i.e. ferry expansion

3. Transit and Paratransit Operations and Education Program (RTP ID# 240383) $665 $1,650 $23,000 Includes estimates for operating shortfalls

4. Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Implementation Program (RTP ID# 240384) $25 $1,286 $500 Overlaps with bike, pedestrian, transit, TDM, local streets, and PDA program elements

5. Local Road Improvements Program (RTP ID# 240386) $423 $1,260 $6,700 Overlaps with bike, pedestrian, transit, and PDA program elements

6. Local Streets and Roads Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Program (RTP ID# 240387) $0 $828 $2,800 Based on MTC estimate of LSR O & M needs

7. Highway, Freeway, Safety and Non-Capacity Improvements Program (RTP ID# 240388) $468 $127 $4,700 Based on Caltrans estimate of state highway needs

8. Bridge Improvements Program (RTP ID# 240389) $0 $286 $300

9. Transportation and Land Use Program (or PDA Program) (RTP ID# 240391) $138 $823 $1,000

10. Planning and Outreach Program (RTP ID# 240392) $16 $27 $100 Includes potential planning studies for other categories, i.e. PDA, freight, TDM, etc

11. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Management Program (RTP ID# 240393) $0 $103 $500

12. Goods Movement Program (RTP ID# 240394) $445 $147 $500

13. Priority Development Area (PDA) Support - Non-Transportation Program (RTP ID# 240395 $0 $0 $50

14. Environmental Mitigation Program (RTP ID# 240396) $0 $0 $50 ACTAC

15. Transportation Technology and Revenue Enhancement Program (RTP ID# 240397) $0 $75 $300

PROGRAMS SUBTOTALS $3,555 $9,397 $50,800 Meeting Agenda

* Includes Measure B Expenditure Program, 2008 CWTP Committed Projects (Table 6.1) and Investments by Category (Table 6.8) Attachment ** All figures rounded to nearest $100Ms Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 49 A

4/27/2011 Table 1 Draft Programmatic Category Estimates 2011-04-27_CC.xls 2011 RTP/CWTP Call for projects - Current Estimate RTP ID Program Categories Previous* Cost estimate of need* Proposed* Notes on need estimate

=($275+$903) 2006 Co Bike/ped plan cost estimate * 1.30 for 240381 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (RT ID# 240381) $396.5 $599.0 $ 2,600.0 escalation estimate 1A. Countywide Bike Plan Capital Projects network $75.0 1128.15 local bike/ped 981*1.15 escalation 1B. Countywide Pedestrian Plan Capital Projects network $2.0 1531.4 Co Bike/ped 1C. Local Bike & Pedestrian Plan Implementation $491.6 2659.55 1D. Bike Support Facilities - Capital & Operations 1E. Infrastructure Maintenance 1F. Education and Promotion Program 1G. Crossing Guard Program $30.4 Includes county- and local-level bike and pedestrian improvements = AC Transit 88% of $1,745.8 + BART 39% of $15,119 + :LAVTA 240382 2. Transit Enhancements, Expansion and Safety Program (RTP ID# 240382) $978.8 $2,187.1 $ 7,700.0 $127.4 + UC Transit $43.8 + ACE 33% of $453 2A. Transit Capital Rehabilitation $63.9 7753.404 2B. Transit Capital Replacement $163.2 MTC Transit capital needs projections 2C. Vehicle Expansion $518.9 2D. Safety and Security for Passengers and System (including seismic retrofit) $112.9 2E. Station and Stops Improvements (access, expansion and amenities) $591.5 2F. System Capacity (to allow increased use of systems) $449.7 2G. Maintenance Facilities Expansion $180.4 2H. Environmental Program $106.6 Includes Alameda County share of systemwide improvements. Excludes elements of regional significance, i.e. ferry expansion = AC Transit 88% of $11,540 + BART 39% of $26,347 + :LAVTA 240383 3. Transit and Paratransit Operations and Education Program (RTP ID# 240383) $664.7 $1,649.5$ 23,000.0 $663 + UC Transit $154 + ACE 33% of $632 3A. Transit and Paratransit Operations and Expansion (Including TPM and TSM) $1,273.0 21456.09 3B. Transit Fare Incentives $376.5 MTC Transit operating needs projections 3C. Travel Training, Education and Promotion Programs Placeholder paratransit: $1,500 Includes estimates for operating shortfalls subtotal: 22956.1 240384 4. Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Implementation Program (RTP ID# 2 $24.9 $1,286.2 $ 500.0 placeholder Implement projects and programs identified in “communities of concern” in CBTPs 4A. Alameda Community Based Transportation Plan – June 2009 4B Central Alameda County CBTP– Cherryland, Ashland and South Hayward – June 2004 4C. West Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan – May 2006 4D. Central and East Oakland CBTP– December 2007 4E. South and West Berkeley CBTP – June 2007 4F. Implementation of updated and new adopted CBTPs Overlaps with bike, pedestrian, transit, TDM, local streets, and PDA program elements 240386 5. Local Road Improvements Program (RTP ID# 240386) $423.2 $1,259.5 $ 6,700.0 MTC System preservation est $6,674 5A. Major Arterial Performance Initiative Program $0.0 5B. Safety Improvements $868.0 5C. Streetscape Improvements $116.7 5D. Coordination with Freeways $33.1 5E. Complete Streets $221.5 5F. Traffic Calming $17.4 5G. ITS/Signals $2.8 5H. Signage $0.0

Overlaps with bike, pedestrian, transit, and PDA program elements ACTAC 240387 6. Local Streets and Roads Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Program (RTP ID# 2403 $0.3 $828.0 $ 2,800.0 MTC LSR Ops and Routine Maint est $2822 6A. Pavement Rehab $95.9 6B. Maintenance / Operations $728.1 6C. ITS $4.0 Based on MTC estimate of LSR O & M needs

22.4 B regional state hwy needs * Ala Co share of 21%, MTC Meeting 240388 7. Highway, Freeway, Safety and Non-Capacity Improvements Program (RTP ID# 2403 $467.6 $127.0 $ 4,700.0 PTAC memo Agenda 7A. Interchange Improvements $54.0 4704 7B. Operations incl. Ramp Metering $45.7 7C. Maintenance $0.0 Attachment 7D. Soundwalls $27.3 7E. Freeway Service Patrol $0.0

Page 7F. ITS 05/03/11

Based on Caltrans estimate of state highway needs Item 240389 8. Bridge Improvements Program (RTP ID# 240389) $0.0 $286.4 $ 300.0 placeholder 4.3 50 A 4/27/2011 Table 1 Draft Programmatic Category Estimates 2011-04-27_CC.xls 2011 RTP/CWTP Call for projects - Current Estimate RTP ID Program Categories Previous* Cost estimate of need* Proposed* Notes on need estimate 8A. Bridge Replacement $127.4 8B. Bridge Expansion and Maintenance $5.0 8C. Bridge Retrofit and Repair $94.0 8D. Bridge Operations $60.0

240391 9. Transportation and Land Use Program (or PDA Program) (RTP ID# 240391) $137.9 $822.7 $ 1,000.0 placholder Transportation Improvements at transit hubs (PDAs) in CWTP, including multi-modal access (transit, pedestrian and bike)

240392 10. Planning and Outreach Program (RTP ID# 240392) $16.0 $26.9 $ 100.0 placeholder 10A. Planning Studies and Implementation $26.9 10B. Promotion/Outreach and Education about Transit, Bike, Walk, Multimodal Access (incl SR2T) 10C. Multi-Lingual Educational Materials 10D. School Promotion Includes potential planning studies for other categories, i.e. PDA, freight, TDM, etc 240393 11. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Management Program (R $0.0 $103.4 $ 500.0 placeholder 11A. Parking Programs $44.9 11B. Transit Cards $0.0 11C. School Programs $32.5 11D. GHG Reduction $0.0 11E. TDM (i.e. GRH, 511) $21.4 11F. Pricing Programs $0.0 11G. Shuttles, Streetcars - Alternatives to Fixed Transit) $4.4 11H. Carsharing $0.2 11i. Education and Marketing $0.0 11J. Travel Training $0.0

240394 12. Goods Movement Program (RTP ID# 240394) $445.0 $146.5 $ 500.0 placholder Improvements for goods movement by truck and coordinated with rail (and air) $5.0 12A. Truck Parking $90.0 12B. Port Operations Improvements $11.5 12C. Truck Impacts to Local Streets - Improvements For $20.0 12D. Truck Routing $20.0 12E. Freight Operations Improvements (rail, roads, port)

240395 13. Priority Development Area (PDA) Support - Non-Transportation Program (RTP ID# $0.0 $0.0 $50.0 placeholder Improvements at PDAs that are not transportation, such as sewer and storm water upgrades $0.0 13A. Non-transportation infrastructure improvements (e.g., sewers, storm water) $0.0

240396 14. Environmental Mitigation Program (RTP ID# 240396) $0.0 $0.0 $50.0 placeholder Methods and Strategies to provide off-site mitigation to support projects moving to construction 14A. Mitigation banking

240397 15. Transportation Technology and Revenue Enhancement Program (RTP ID# 240397) $0.0 $75.0 $ 300.0 placeholder ACTAC 15A. New technological advancement implementation (including fueling/charging stations, other communications and technological advancements that support road, highway and transit improvements and efficiencies) $75.0

15B. Revenue Enhancing Projects and Programs Using Technology (including High Occupancy Toll facilities, Express Lanes, Vehicle Miles Traveled programs, Parking Programs that increase revenues, etc) Meeting

PROGRAMS SUBTOTALS $3,554.9 $9,397.2 $50,800.0 Agenda Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 51 A 4/27/2011 Table 1 Draft Programmatic Category Estimates 2011-04-27_CC.xls

This page intentionally left blank. ACTAC Meeting Agenda Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 52 A Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description 1.Alameda Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program - RTP ID # 240381 1A. Countywide Bike Plan Capital Projects network 1 Countywide Bicycle Plan implementation Implementation of projects and programs included in the updated Countywide Bicycle Plan Gap Closure and Development of Three Major Trails in Alameda County (Iron Horse, Bay Trail, East Bay Construct new segments and close existing gaps along three major trails within Alameda County: Greenway Project / UPRR Corridor Improvements 1) Iron Horse Trail; 2) East Bay Greenway; and 3) Bay Trail. East Bay Greenway project includes 2 Project)* 240347 acquistion of UPRR Right of Way north of Industrial Parkway in Hayward. Complete the Bay Trail Extension to provide an accessible 1.3 mile loop trail for bicycles and pedestrians from the main spine of the Bay Trail at West Frontage Road to the Eastshore State 3 City of Berkeley Bay Trail Extension - Berkeley Marina 1 240207 Park, Berkeley Marina, Bay shoreline, and the proposed Berkeley Ferry Terminal. Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Dublin Boulevard near Dublin Transit Center (Bicycle/Pedestrian This project proposes to enhance the Iron Horse Trail located in the City of Dublin by constructing 4 City of Dublin Enhancements) 4 240292 a pedestrian/bicycle bridge overcrossing at Dublin Boulevard Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Dougherty Road This project will enhance the Iron Horse Trail by constructing a pedestrian/bicycle bridge 5 City of Dublin (Bicycle/Pedestrian Enhancements) 4 240294 overcrossing at Dougherty Road located in the City of Dublin.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Expansion: Pedestrian and Bicycle Construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities from Fremont BART Station to Fremont Mitown in the 6 City of Fremont Access Way from Downtown to Fremont BART 3 240281 Central Fremont PDA . City of San 4.7 miles of Bicycle and Pedestrian multi-use pathway following the existing Union Pacific 7 Leandro East Bay Greenway/UPRR Rail to Trail* 2 240322 Railroad Oakland Subdivision building upon the Eastbay Greenway

Tennyson Road Pedestrian/bike bridge from Nuestro Parquecito to South Hayward BART station – 8 City of Hayward Tennyson Road Pedestrian/bike bridge* 2 Included in Bicycle Master Plan 9 1B. Countywide Pedestrian Plan Capital Projects network 10 Countywide Pedestrian Plan implementation Implementation of projects and programs included in the updated Countywide Pedestrian Plan Pedestrian Gap Closure Projects over 580 and 680 - 11 City of Pleasanton program 4 240189 580 pedestrian and bicycle Gap Closure project

ACTAC 1C. Local Bike & Pedestrian Plan Implementation Implementation of Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 12 projects and programs Implementation of projects and programs included in local bicycle and pedestrian plans Meeting

13 Alameda County Sidewalk Improvements 240107 Sidewalk Projects at various locations in Alameda County unincorporated areas Agenda Attachment 14 City of Alameda Bike and Ped Infrastructure 1 Enhancing and maintaining bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the City Page The project entails continuing the Class I bikeway from the 500 block of Pierce St. through the 05/03/11 surplus parcel of land and connect it to the bike lanes planned for Cleveland Avenue. Included in Item 15 City of Albany Bike/ped expansion - Cleveland Avenue Improvements 1 240352 this phase is the extension of the sound wall along the 500 block of Pierce St. 4.3 53 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 1 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description Bicycle and pedestrian improvements - included in the update to the bike plan currently in 16 City of Albany Key Route Boulevard 1 progress

17 City of Albany Pierce Street Bicycle Bikeway* 1 Included in the update to the bike plan currently in progress San Pablo Avenue medians, rain gardens and streetscape In the San Pablo Streetscape Plan and included in the update to the pedestrian plan currently in 18 City of Albany improvements 1 progress Included in the Solano Avenue Plan and included in the update to the pedestrian Master plan 19 City of Albany Solano Avenue pavement resurfacing and beautification 1 currently in progress bike boulevard and intersection improvements at San Pablo Avenue - included in the update to the 20 City of Albany Washington Avenue @ San Pablo 1 bike plan currently in progress

Complete Streets: Streetscape Improvements & Implement Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted 6/10. The Plan includes well developed 21 City of Berkeley Pedestrian Plan Implementation 1 240197 conceptual plans, which include Safe Routes to Schools, and Safe Route to Transit elements. Berkeley Bicycle Plan implementation , including Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit elements Implement Berkeley Bicycle Plan, including Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit 22 City of Berkeley (Bicycle/Pedestrian Enhancements) 1 240206 elements

This project includes the design and construction of a bike-ped bridge over the I-80 freeway at the City of location of the Ashby-Shellmound Interchange. Approaches to the crossover structure will connect 23 Emeryville I-80 Bike Ped Bridge (65th Street) 1 240003 to 65th Street on the east approach and to Frontage Road on the west approach. City of Expand Emeryville Greenway through design and construction of pathway(s) and landscaping on 24 Emeryville Emeryville Greenway (Bicycle/Pedestrian Expansion) 1 240201 existing City owned right of way (former rail right of way).

Improvement of pedestrian and bicycle connection to Central Park between Fremont Blvd and Paseo Padre Parkway, including re-alignment of flood control channel, pedestrian path, landscape, 25 City of Fremont Greenbelt Gateway on Grimmer Boulevard 3 240260 curb, and a bridge connection to Central Park. Install a 5' wide walkway between Mission Blvd and Niles Blvd on the eastboud side Sulliva Sullivan Road Undercrossing Ped/Bike Safety & Underpass under the UPRR bridge. Reconfigure the intersections of Sullivan Underpass at Mission 26 City of Fremont Improvements 3 240262 and and Niles and install a new traffic signal at Mission. Construct Bicycle/Pedestrian Grade Separation on

Blacow Road at Union Pacific railroad tracks and future Construct a bicycle/pedestrian grade separated crossing over UPRR/BART line to connect Blacow ACTAC 27 City of Fremont BART line in Irvington Area PDA 3 240287 Road and Osgood Road in the Irvington Area PDA.

Construct a new bicycle and pedestrian trail within UPRR/BART Corridor right of way from Niles 28 City of Fremont Rails to Trails Fremont UPRR/BART Corridor Trail 3 240291 area (UPRR/Clarke Drive junction) in north Fremont to Fremont/Milpitas City limits in the south. Meeting Agenda • C Street – Grand to Filbert – narrow, increase sidewalk, construct median

• C Street – Watkins to Mission – narrow to one lane, increase sidewalk, provide bike lane Attachment • Main Street – D Street to McKeever – narrow to 2 lanes, increase sidewalk and provide bike lane • Cannery Pedestrian bridge over the UPRR tracks in the Cannery Area. Page

• Dixon Street – Valle Vista to Industrial – streetscape improvements to complement TLC project 05/03/11

29 City of Hayward Bike-Pedestrian Enhancements* 2 240016 from Valle Vista to Tennyson Item 4.3 54 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 2 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

30 City of Livermore Bicycle/Pedestrian Expansion 4 240255 Implement projects identified in Bike and Ped Master Plan Bike/Ped Enhancements: Pedestrian and Bicycle Master 31 City of Newark Plan Implementation 3 240284 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Implementation Bike/Ped Expansion: Dumbarton TOD Bay Trail 32 City of Newark Railroad Overcrossing* 3 240288 Dumbarton TOD Bay Trail Railroad Overcrossing Cedar Boulevard Pedestrian and Bicycle Railroad 33 City of Newark Crossing 3 240289 Cedar Boulevard Pedestrian and Bicycle Railroad Overcrossing

Completion of bicycle and pedestrian projects citywide. Work includes pavement resurfacing, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety and Enhancements: construction of bulbouts, medians, pedestrian refuges, widened sidewalks, installation of new street 34 City of Oakland Streetscapes 1 240225 furniture, streets trees and other enhancements.

Completion of Bay Trail Projects in Oakland, including Bike/Ped bridge over the Lake Merritt Channel, and bike/ped access around existing bridges over the Oakland Estuary. Also includes 35 City of Oakland Bicycle/Pedestrian Expansion 1 240227 bicycle/pedestrian connections to the Bay Trail from existing facilities. City of Union Bicycle/Pedestrian Connector Over UPRR Tracks to 36 City Jobs Center 3 230100 Construct a pedestrian crossing over the UPRR tracks in the Union City Intermodal Station District

Improve safety along MacArthur Blvd between High Street and Seminary by altering lane widths, installing additional traffic signals, adding bike lanes, a path, and pedestrian crossings; move curb Laurel District Safety and Access on MacArthur, from and gutter in sections of the street, relocate utility poles to provide ADA width sidewalks, provide 37 City of Oakland High Street to Seminary (LAMMPS)* 1 retaining wall in one location.

1D. Bike Support Facilities - Capital & Operations 38 Bike parking Includes bike parking, storage and changing facilities, showers 39 Bikesharing Implementation of bike-share programs 1E. Infrastructure Maintenance

Maintenance of bikeways, sidewalks, trails, signage, signals and other bike/pedestrian ACTAC 40 Maintenance of bike and pedestrian facilities infrastructure 1F. Education and Promotion Program 41 Promotion of biking and walking Examples include Bike to Work Day, Bike/Walk to School day, active transportation, etc Meeting

42 Bicycle safety Examples include Street Skills /Road I bike classes, and Share the Road campaigns Agenda

1G. Crossing Guard Program Attachment 43 Crossing guard program Support for crossing guard programs Page 2. Transit Enhancements, Expansion and Safety Program - RTP ID # 240382 05/03/11 Item 2A. Transit Capital Rehabilitation 4.3 55 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 3 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

44 ACE Locomotive rehabilitation (6 locomotives, mid-life) 240307 Mid-life Overhaul of six (6) locomotives 45 ACE Rail Car Rehabilitation (28 pax rail cars, mid-life) 240308 Mid-life overhaul of twenty-eight (28) passenger rail cars Capital Spares, Minor Locomotive & Rail Car 46 ACE Rehabilitation 240310 Spare & replacement parts, mechanical and cosmetic, for rail cars and locomotives. Annual Preventive Maintenance costs for rail cars and 47 ACE? locomotives. 240311 Annual Preventive Maintenance costs for rail cars and locomotives. Enhance Emeryville's existing transit services with installation of up to 30 bus shelters and other City of site amenities including benches, maps, signage and amenities for existing AC Transit and Emery 48 Emeryville Transit Station Rehabilitation 1 240247 Go Round routes and expansion of the Amtrak station platform in Emeryville. City of 49 Emeryville Transit Vehicle Rehabilitation/Replacement/Retrofit 1 240251 Replace 14 outdated Emery Go Round Shuttles with Low Floor Diesel, hybrid and/or CNG shuttles

This project will provide a scalable, cost-effective IP-based solution for quickly establishing communications between disparate systems in support of emergency response and day-to-day 50 ACE Interoperable Communications Equipment 240297 operations. Additional funding is being sought for Fremont and Great America. 2B. Transit Capital Replacement LAVTA will need to replace 197 fixed-route vehicles and perform mid-life rehabilitations on 194 vehicles through 2040. This program is intended to provide funding for the Authority's fleet replacement and rehabilitation requirements. Vehicle replacement includes replacing all vehicle Transit Vehicle Rehabilitation/Replacement/Retrofit components including all ITS, fareboxes, radios, and equipment necessary for safe and efficient 51 LAVTA (197veh + 194 veh) 4 94527 fleet operations. 2C. Vehicle Expansion Additional Fleet Vehicles To Support Improved Transit 52 AC Transit Service 21154 Purchases rolling stock for enhanced transbay, local, or express services Purchase of bucket truck for Maintenance Department. Purchase of tow-behind sweeper for Maintenance Department for parking lot and private roadway upkeep.Purchase of two (2) all electric vehicles with sufficient range to travel to and from San Jose with incidental stops at stations and vendors without recharging en-route or using any on-board fuel. Estiamted range needed is

53 ACE ACE Vehicles 240314 greater than 200 miles after 10 years of normal battery usage. ACTAC BART Rail Vehicle Capacity Expansion- 225 cars 54 BART (Alameda County portion) 240073 Purchase 225 additional cars to accommodate future increases in ridership.

2D. Safety and Security for Passengers and System (including seismic retrofit) Meeting

This project encompasses a number of capital elements to ensure AC Transit vehicles and facilities Agenda are safe and secure for the passengers, including: bus video and facility surveillance system with data storage; mobile communications vehicle; emergency generator systems at operating divisions; Attachment Emergency Operations Center Upgrades; Transfer Centers/Stop surveillance program; and 55 AC Transit Safety and security improvements* 230098 “Hardening” upgrades to operating divisions and temporary Transbay terminal. Page 05/03/11

On-Board, remotely accessible security cameras and associated infrastructure to include Wi-Fi Item 56 ACE On-board Security Cameras 240275 networking on each rail car. 4.3 56 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 4 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description IP-Based video surveillance system for all San Joaquin County stations, Vasco, Pleasanton, and 57 ACE Security Cameras at the Alameda & SJ Stations 240295 Alameda County Stations. Project will improve or enhance BART security to protect the patrons and the system. Projects to be implemented include: 1) Emergency Communications; 2) Operations Control Center; 3) Locks & Alarms; 4) Public Safety Preparedness; 5) Structural Augmentation; 6) Surveillance - CIP Track 58 BART BART Security Program (Alameda County portion) 240072 Two Portion; and 7) weapons Detection Systems. 2E. Station and Stops Improvements (access, expansion and amenities) Complete Streets improvements, including Livable Communities Ped Improvements, ADA curb cuts, ped countdowns, improved sidewalks, signage and bike improvements along transit corridors. 59 AC Transit Livable Communities/Complete Streets/ADA 240373 Includes: $13.2 for Alameda County and $1.8 for Contra Costa County Information displays and accompanying infrastructure to provide real time arrival and departure Information Display Kiosks at ACE stations & on-board information for ACE and connecting transit/shuttle services. General information, announcements, 60 ACE rail cars 240240 and advertisements could also be accommodated. Passenger shelters, including solar lighting and power infrastructure, street furniture, ADA- 61 ACE ACE Station Improvements 240241 accessibility.

Makes station capacity improvements at 43 BART stations throughout the District. Types of improvements include faregate, stair, and elevator additions; and platform modifications, including 62 BART BART Station Capacity (Alameda County portion) 240075 platform widening, escalator additions, train-screens, and doors. Complete construction of all elements of Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza improvements, including transit architecture (custom bus shelter, BART primary (rotunda) & secondary entrance Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Area canopies), wayfinding signage, capacity improvements, and place-making through new hardscape, 63 City of Berkeley Enhancements 1 240217 street furniture, public art, street trees, and low impact development features.

Construct capital expenditures for Berkeley WETA Ferry Terminal-associated landside improvements including roadway improvements, parking, lighting, traffic signal controls, surface 64 City of Berkeley Berkeley Ferry Terminal Access Improvements 1 240226 transit infrastructure, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Downtown (12th and 19th Street) BART Stations Transit Enhancement. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to downtown BART stations through streetscape projects incorporating pedestrian Downtown (12th and 19th Street) BART Stations enhancements, construction of safe basements underneath sidewalks, paving, sidewalks, bicycle 65 City of Oakland Transit Enhancements 1 240232 facilities, bicycle storage and bike station development, and signage. LAVTA desires to improve bus stops throughout Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore to provide

ADA access where access does not exist and improved amenities such as passenger shelters, ACTAC 66 LAVTA Bus Stop Improvements* 4 230148 benches, trash receptacles, system maps and schedules, solar lighting, accessibility upgrades, etc. Telegraph/International/E.14th ped improvements (non 67 AC Transit pavement)*

2F. System capacity (to allow increased use of systems) Meeting Agenda Computer Aided Dispatch Upgrades, including Automatic Vehicle Locator and Real Time

Passenger Information. Bus enhancements including automatic passenger counters, internal text Attachment 68 AC Transit Transit Management Systems* 240205 messaging and associated system upgrades required for enhancements to function. Altamont Rail Corridor (Upgrades) Rehabilitation- Track, positive train control, and signaling upgrades along the existing and planned Altamont Page 69 ACE Track, positive train control, and signaling upgrade 240305 Commuter Express operational corridors. 05/03/11 Item 4.3 57 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 5 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description Includes cash registers, updated fiscal management software (Caselle Clarity), updated computers, 70 ACE Fiscal System modernization 240312 and associated infrastructure Make investments across BART system including train control modifications to operations control center and integrated control system; traction power upgrades, 3rd rail feeder cables, negative return capacity in yards, and 1/4 of traction power substations; ventilation in underground stations to handle increased passenger loads; crossovers can reduce fleet demand by 16-30 BART cars, while allowing for more operational flexibility (mitigation of delays, more frequent evening and 71 BART BART Station Capacity (Alameda County portion) 240089 weekend service). 2G. Maintenance Facilities Expansion Expand/enhance AC Transit facilities such as environmental sustainability projects, heavy 72 AC Transit Maintenance Facility Efficiency Upgrades 21159 equipment, IT infrastructure, other facility improvements. Constructs a new maintenance facility. LAVTA has outgrown its existing facility. The current facility was designed for no more than 43 vehicles, both motorbus and demand response. The current LAVTA fleet consists of 75 motor buses and 18 demand response vehicles. The proposed facility would incorporate facilities and parking for up to 160 buses, which will equip LAVTA for 73 LAVTA LAVTA maintenance/operations facility 4 21151 the growth anticipated in the Tri-Valley. LAVTA owns and maintains three main facilities: the administrative, operations, and maintenance facility, the Livermore Transit Center, and the Atlantis Satellite Bus Facility. As these facilities age, regular on-going maintenance, major and minor, is required to maintain the assets in a state of good repair. This program would provide on-going funding to maintain and extend the useful life of the 74 LAVTA Maintenance Facilities Improvements 230151 Authority's three main facilities. 75 AC Transit 66th Ave Upgrade to Operational Facility 2H. Environmental Program

The project would be to reduce AC Transit's carbon footprint, as well as address other environmental issues associated with bus transit operations such as ZEB fueling and maintenance facility. The program would also implement projects to reduce the energy currently used at operating

facilities by installing solar panels to reduce the lighting costs for our facilities. ACTAC To address environmental issues currently facing the agency, the project would also include programs to enhance our wastewater treatment programs to better manage our industrial wastewater systems, including: upgrades and/or replacement of our underground fuel tanks and the related clean-up of historical contamination; continued efforts in preventing contaminants from

76 AC Transit Environmental projects 230121 entering storm water drains at facilities. Meeting 77 AC Transit Greening of Vehicles - environmental program Agenda

78 AC Transit Alternative Fueling Facilities (D3,D6, CMF) Attachment 3. Transit and Paratransit Operations and Maintenance Program - RTP ID # 240383 Page 05/03/11

3A. Transit and Paratransit Operations and Expansion (Including TPM and TSM) Item 4.3 58 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 6 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description Maintain existing transit service , restore previously cut transit services, and expand existing and 79 Transit Operations new transit services

80 Paratransit Operations (mandated and non-mandated) Maintain and expand parantransit service operations Improves speed and reliability for bus transit on the College/Broadway/University/Alameda corridor. Includes queue jump lanes, transit signal priority, pedestrian amenities and improvements, College/ Broadway Corridor Improvements - Transit safety and security enhancements, geometric improvements to assist bus operations and real-time 81 AC Transit Priority Measures 240372 passenger information.

As part of the second amendament to the SJRRC/UPRR Trackage Rights Agreement approved December 2003, an annual Capital Access Fee is required in January of each year to operate ACE 82 ACE UPRR Capital Access Fee 240274 trains on the 86 mile corridor. Transit Priority Measures (TPM), Corridor or street improvements and rider amenities within Alameda County to protect buses from degrading speeds on arterials while providing passenger amenities to encourage increased ridership, such as: signal timing, signal priority and queue jump lanes; more frequent service levels; passenger loading stations or amenities; real-time passenger information; street and sidewalk geometric changes to assist bus operations (bus bulbs if appropriate). Also includes single intersection-level improvements not included in a larger corridor 83 ACTC Transit enhancements, i.e. Transit Priority Measures 21992 projects.

Rapid Bus Service - City of Alameda and Alameda Implement Rapid Bus Service from Alameda Point PDA via Webster Street, Lincoln Avenue, Point PDA (Alameda Naval Station) to Fruitvale Tilden Way, Fruitvale Avenue Bridge (Miller Sweeney Bridge), and Fruitvale Avenue to Fruitvale 84 City of Alameda BART* 1 240077 BART Station.

Design and construct a Downtown Berkeley Transit Center, potentially including bus turn-around, 85 City of Berkeley Downtown Berkeley Transit Center 1 240179 boarding platforms, visitor information facilities, and safe pedestrian access to transit. 86 AC Transit Foothill TSP - Transit Priority Measures Grand/MacArthur Corridor Improvements - Transit 87 AC Transit Priority Measures

88 AC Transit Speed Protection in Urban Core ACTAC Restore Service to 2009 Levels to Higher Density neighborhoods. Lifeline Service for low-income communities • I-80 adjacent elements of South & West Berkeley Community-Based Transportation Plan • West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan 89 City of Berkeley I-80 Corridor Transit Service 1 • AC Transit Service Plan Meeting Agenda Per year, for service changes to routes 77, 84, 93, 97, 99 and new door-to-door service for South

90 Adjustments to AC Transit Service 2 Hayward and Bayfair BART. Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 59 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 7 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

Restoration of AC Transit service. Implementation of City's Transit First Policy. Development of service improvements to Trunk Lines 51 and 1R. Traffic signal transit optimization. * Transit- First Policy (Council Resolution 58,731-N.S.) * AC Transit Line 51 and 1R Studies 91 Transit Service Restoration and Enhancement* 1 3B. Transit Fare Incentives 92 ACE ACE eTicketing 240253 Electronic fare collection system with seamless Clipper integration and associated infrastructure. Alameda County Office of 93 Education Student Bus Pass* Provide free bus passes to all middle and high school students in Alameda County 3C. Travel Training, Education and Promotion Programs

94 See under Section 10 Planning and Outreach, and Section 11 TDM 4. Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Implementation Program - RTP ID # 240384 CBTPs - implementation of specific recommendations - including transit, local road, streetscape, bike, pedestrian Includes (City of) Alameda CBTP, Central Alameda County CBTP, West Oakland CPTP, Central 95 and TDM elements and East Oakland CBTP, and South and West Berkeley CBTP.

City of Continue operation of the Emeryville Lifeline Transportation Program, a door to door shuttle called 96 Emeryville Lifeline Transportation 1 240209 "8 to Go" for the duration of the Plan's funding cycle. Develop a Community Based Transportation Plan to: 1) provide reliable, safe, and affordable access to regional transit infrastructure in adjacent communities (Oakland and Berkeley) to residents of Emeryville; and 2) in collaboration with Oakland and Berkeley provide reliable, safe City of and affordable access to Emeryville jobs and retail destinations to the residents of West Berkeley 97 Emeryville Regional Planning and Outreach - develop a CBTP 1 240242 and North Oakland, by addressing barriers to cross-jurisdictional, multimodal travel. Explore a Role for the Alameda County Guaranteed 98 Ride Home Program

In Ashland, ACTAC Cherryland and S. Operating Costs: $0 - $50/year per unit for maintenance; Capital Costs: $200 - $450 per bike rack 99 Hayward Bicycle Parking 2 unit; $3000 per 8-10 unit bike lockers In Ashland,

Cherryland and S. $215,000. Operating Costs: Up to several thousand dollars per year (depending on vandalism); Meeting

100 Hayward Bus Shelters 2 Capital Costs: Free per high-traffic location Agenda In Ashland, Attachment Cherryland and S. 101 Hayward Sidewalks in Cherryland 2 $36,000,000. Operating Costs: Some maintenance costs; Capital Costs: $500,000 per block Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 60 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 8 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

In Ashland, $120,000. Operating Costs: $42/year per unit (electric charge only); $95 -$120/year electricity and Cherryland and S. maintenance; Capital Costs: $12,000 for a new light pole; $2,000 - $3,000 if light can use an 102 Hayward Lighting 2 existing pole and wiring In Ashland, Cherryland and S. Operating Costs: Some maintenance costs included as part of street maintenance costs; Capital 103 Hayward Bicycle Lanes 2 Costs: $30,000 per roadway mile for striping and signage In Ashland, Cherryland and S. Operating Costs: program cost depends on available funds - $20,000/year for administration as part 104 Hayward Bicycle Purchase Assistance 2 of an existing program; Capital Costs: $200/bicycle, lock, and helmet

Streetscape and bus stop improvements along transit $1.7 million to $8.9 million, depending on the length of the corridor and the scope of work (e.g. in Central and E. corridors, at BART stations, and existing CEDA whether the project includes utility undergrounding, street resurfacing, signal upgrades, 105 Oakland streetscape improvement projects 1 landscaping, custom bus shelters or standard bus shelters, decorative paving or standard paving). Improve bicycle connections to BART stations Class 3A Bicycle Route on East 12th Street from Fruitvale Ave to in Central and E. 40th Ave (signing and striping and/or lane conversion $37,500. The City of Oakland Bicycle Master Plan estimates that a Class 3A Arterial Bike Route 106 Oakland projects) 1 has a unit cost of approximately $75,000 per mile. This project is 0.50 miles in length. Improve bicycle connections to BART stations Class 2 Bicycle Lane on San Leandro Street from 66th Ave to in Central and E. 85th Ave. (signing and striping and/or lane conversion $93,000. The City of Oakland Bicycle Master Plan estimates that a Class 2 Bicycle Lane has a unit 107 Oakland projects) 1 cost of approximately $100,000 per mile. This proposed bicycle lane is 0.93 miles in length.

Improve bicycle connections to BART stations Class 2 Bicycle Lane on Camden Street and Havenscourt Blvd in Central and E. from MacArthur Blvd to International Blvd (signing and $132,000. The City of Oakland Bicycle Master Plan estimates that a Class 2 Bicycle Lane has a unit 108 Oakland striping and/or lane conversion projects) 1 cost of approximately $100,000 per mile. This proposed project is 1.32 miles in length. Improve bicycle connections to BART stations Class 2 Bicycle Lane on Fruitvale Ave from Foothill Blvd to in Central and E. East 12th Street (signing and striping and/or lane $55,000. The City of Oakland Bicycle Master Plan estimates that a Class 2 Bicycle Lane has a unit

ACTAC 109 Oakland conversion projects) 1 cost of approximately $100,000 per mile. This proposed project is 0.55 miles in length. in Central and E. $2.2 million. The Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan includes improvements to the 66th Avenue 110 Oakland Coliseum BART to Bay Trail Connector Path* 1 underpass. Meeting in Central and E. Bicycle Programs Offer Road I Courses to residents in The cost to provide Road I courses and funding to Cycles of Change is relatively low compared to Agenda 111 Oakland the project area 1 more capital-intensive projects. Attachment

in Central and E. Bicycle Programs Provide funding for Cycles of Change The cost to provide Road I courses and funding to Cycles of Change is relatively low compared to more capital-intensive projects. Page 112 Oakland program 1 05/03/11 Item 4.3 61 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 9 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description $220 per trash can (plus $36 weekly per trash can for servicing); approximately $3,000 per bus In city of stop for lighting; $18,000 per shelter (plus $1,500 annually per shelter for maintenance) City of 113 Alameda Implement Bus Stop and Shelter Improvements 1 Alameda $500 to $1,250 for street trees; $250 to $1,000 per tree for a program modeled after Urban Releaf; $200 to $400 per linear foot of landscaped medians, including irrigation; $1,800 per tree in a In city of planter 114 Alameda Improve the Pedestrian Experience in Alameda Point 1 box; $20 per square foot of sidewalk repairs In city of $8,000 to $15,000 per lamp including trenching and electrical, plus $100 per lamp every four years 115 Alameda Install Pedestrian Street Lights 1 for bulb changing

In city of Improve Pedestrian Access between West Alameda and $5 million for a pedestrian barge (plus $2.5 million annually for operation); $40 million for a one- 116 Alameda Oakland 1 way path for pedestrians and bicyclists in the Webster/Posey Tube In city of $3 per linear foot for striping new crosswalks; $80,000 to $100,000 per lighted crosswalk; $8,000 117 Alameda Increase Pedestrian Crossing Visibility and Safety 1 to$15,000 per refuge island In city of Improve Pavement and Bicycle Striping near the Ferry 118 Alameda Terminal 1 $4 per square foot to repave roadways; $2.30 per linear foot to stripe bicycle lanes In city of 119 Alameda Create More Bicycle Lanes throughout Alameda 1 $10,000 per linear mile In city of 120 Alameda Increase the Bicycle Capacity Onboard Buses 1 $900 to $1,350 each for racks that mount to front of bus; $500 to $700 each for onboard racks In city of Increase Bicycling Options for Youth and Low-Income Cycles of Changes has an annual budget of $146,000 and financial support should contribute to this 121 Alameda Residents 1 amount or augment it. In city of 122 Alameda Increase Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in the Tube 1 $7 million, plus an annual cleaning cost of $50,000 In city of Improve Bicycling Access between Alameda and 123 Alameda Oakland 1 $300,000 for a bicycle shuttle (plus $2 million annually in operating costs)

In city of Increase Education Regarding Bicycling Routes and $500 per wayfinding signage; $10,000 for marketing material production (plus $5,000 per 124 Alameda Safety 1 printing); contributions toward the Cycles of Change annual budget of $146,000 125 in city of Berkeley Expansion of Berkeley Paratransit Services Taxi Scrip Program 1

ACTAC in S. and W. Shelters/benches at no cost; solar powered lighting $700 to $3,000 per stop/shelter, transit info. $85- 126 Berkeley Bus Stop and Shelter Improvement 1 $385 each in S. and W. 127 Berkeley Improved Pedestrian Signal Timing 1 No cost, city staff can implement at no extra cost Meeting

in S. and W. Improved Crosswalk Visibility at Uncontrolled Agenda 128 Berkeley Intersections 1 South and West Berkeley in S. and W. Attachment 129 Berkeley Shared Roadway Pavement Markings 1 South and West Berkeley Page in S. and W. 05/03/11 130 Berkeley Improved Pedestrian Lighting 1 $768,000 to $1,024,000 Item 4.3 62 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 10 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description in S. and W. Secure Bicycle Parking (Provide More Locations for 131 Berkeley Safe Bicycle Storage) 1 South and West Berkeley in S. and W. Education of Cyclists regarding Bicycle Boulevard 132 Berkeley Network 1 $10,000 to $20,000

in S. and W. Improved Crossing for Bicycles at Bicycle Boulevards 133 Berkeley (Improved Crossings at Bicycle Boulevards) 1 $400,000 to $500,000

Improved Crossing for Bicycles at Bicycle Boulevards in S. and W. (Shared Roadway Pavement Markings on Class II.5 134 Berkeley Bikeways and Traffic Circle Approaches) 1 See "Improved Crossings at Bicycle Boulevards" Pedestrian Improvements/Bikes Lanes: Mandela, 8th, 135 in W. Oakland Wood 1 136 in W. Oakland 7th Street Streetscape Project - Phase I 1 West Oakland 137 in W. Oakland Bike Lanes: Market Street 1 West Oakland 138 in W. Oakland Bike Racks 1 $150/rack 139 in W. Oakland Cycles of Change 1 $90,000 for two years for O&M 140 in W. Oakland 7th Street Streetscape Project - Phase II 1 $5-6 million 141 in W. Oakland Bike Lanes: Grand Avenue and 14th Street 1 Grand: $200,000-$250,000; 14th: $500,000-$800,000 142 in W. Oakland Traffic Calming: Peralta Street : Design only 1 $100,000 (design only) 143 in W. Oakland Bikeway: Middle Harbor Shoreline Park 1 TBD: Part of multi-million roadway project that has not been designed. 144 in W. Oakland Subsidized car sharing-W. Oakland 1 $110K/Year Comprehensive Transportation/Land Use Plan W. 145 in W. Oakland Oakland CBTP 1 $150K 146 in W. Oakland BART underground - W. Oakland 1 $200-350M/miles

147 in W. Oakland CBTP Project Implementation Assistance W. Oakland 1 $15K 148 BART Noise Study Reduce noise impacts for neighborhoods

ACTAC 149 BART Rail Grinding Reduce vibration impacts on neighborhoods 150 Bus Shelters 2 One-time cost for forty shelters 151 Transportation Information on Cable Television 2 One-time cost to adapt existing video

152 Information Center 2 2 Communities ($60K each per year) plus equipment ($20K one-time) Meeting 153 Information at Stops and on Buses 2 Info at shelters for both equipment and materials Agenda

154 Bicycle Purchase Assistance 2 To provide 200 bicycles, the minimum to justify administrative costs is $20K. per year Attachment 155 Bicycle Racks 2 5 per community (for 3 communities)

Page Medical Service Access (Taxi Return) $50k/year 156 1 05/03/11 157 BART Transit Village Parking 1 $5K (community monitoring) Item 4.3 63 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 11 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description 5. Local Road Improvements Program - RTP ID # 240386 158 Congestion relief Congestion relief on local streets and roads 5A. Major Arterial Performance Initiative Program Focus on Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS), a companian to MTC'c Freeway Performance initiative. This would include improved mobility, management of the existing system and meeting environmental targets through signal interconnect, transit priority, incident 159 ACTC Arterial Performance Initiative Program 230224 management, traveler information and intersection improvements. 5B. Safety Improvements 160 Safety improvements Examples include rail crossings, roadway crossings, etc. 161 Grade separations Grade separations at rail lines and major roadways for safety for auto/ bike / pedestrians The project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, and guardrail modifications along Crow Canyon Road between E. Castro Valley Blvd. and the Alameda 162 Alameda County Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements Project 2 240094 / Contra Costa county line. The project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, and guardrail modifications along Patterson Pass Road between Cross and Midway. The shoulder widening will make the roadway complete for bicyclists and pedestrians. The project construction 163 Alameda County Patterson Pass Road Safety Improvements Project 4 240095 would be completed in six phases. The project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, and guardrail modifications along Tesla Road between Greenville Road and the San Joaquin County line. The shoulder widening will make the roadway complete for bicyclist and pedestrians. The 164 Alameda County Tesla Road Safety Improvements Project 4 240096 project construction would be completed in ten phases. The project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, and guardrail modifications along Altamont Pass Road between. The shoulder widening will make the 165 Alameda County Altamont Pass Safety Improvements Project 4 240097 roadway complete for bicyclist and pedestrians.

The project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, installation of median barriers along 166 Alameda County Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project Phase II 4 240098 Vasco Road between Contra Costa County and the City of Livermore.

The project will improve significantly improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and access along Redwood Road/A Street Improvements (I-580 to Redwood Road / A Street between I-580 and Hayward city limit. The project includes, wider 167 Alameda County Hayward city limits) 2 240111 sidewalk, bicycle lanes, median islands, and improve crosswalks.

ACTAC The project will improve significantly improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and access along Redwood Road between Oakland City limits and Buti Park in Castro Valley. The shoulder Redwood Road Safety Improvement Project (Castro widening will make the roadway complete for bicyclist and pedestrians. The project construction 168 Alameda County Valley to Oakland) 2 240325 would be completed in ten phases. Marin Avenue is the primary east-west arterial serving residential and civic areas through the City Meeting and connecting to I-80/580 via Buchanan St. The proposed project entails implementing bulbouts Agenda at the intersections of Marin Avenue with the side streets to reduce the distance pedestrians have to Attachment cross the street. and implementing a median from the intersection of Marin and Cornell Avenues to 169 City of Albany Local Road Safety - Marin Ave 1 240350 the intersection of Marin and Evelyn Avenues. Page Enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety, provide Safe Routes to Schools and Transit, improve traffic 05/03/11 170 City of Berkeley State Route 13/Ashby Avenue Corridor Improvements 1 240202 safety on State Route 13/Ashby Avenue in Berkeley. Item 4.3 64 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 12 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

Design and construct railway crossing improvements, inculding grade separation at Gilman Avenue and quadrant gates, road closures, and at-grade improvements at other crossings, per Quiet Zone 171 City of Berkeley Railroad Crossing Improvements 1 230116 Study.

Undergrounding of utilities on Ashby/State Route 13 to ensure resiliency of emergency evacuation 172 City of Berkeley Ashby/State Route 13 Disaster Resilience 1 240266 routes in the event of a disaster.

Improve highway-rail crossing safety at four at-grade crossings in the City of Fremont by installing raised medians, railroad gate improvements, and sidewalk. Rail crossing locations are: Fremont 173 City of Fremont Safety improvements at UPRR 3 240208 Blvd., Maple St., Dusterberry Way., and Nursery Ave. Widening of Vargas Road from Pico Road to Morrison Canyon Road and widening of Morrison Vargas Road Safety Improvement Project from I-680 to Canyon Road from Vargas Road to County Line to 18' wide paved road with 1' shoulder on each 174 City of Fremont the Vargas Plateau Regional Park 3 240265 side and turnouts 175 City of Hayward Tennyson Road Grade Separation 2 240055 Construct an underpass on Tennyson Road between Whitman and Huntwood Avenues Construct a grade separation structure on Central Avenue (4-lane arterial street) at Union Pacific 176 City of Newark Central Avenue Railroad Overpass 3 21103 Railroad crossing. Project is an enhancement. Construct a grade separation structure on Mowry Avenue at the Union Pacific Railroad crossing to 177 City of Newark Mowry Avenue Railroad Overpass 3 240273 provide access to Area 4 in Newark. Improving Railroad Crossings - existing rail crossings are generally deficient in gate arms and Local Road Safety Program: Railroad Crossings, Street warning lights, at grade cross-track sidewalk access and ADA access, paving, signage, pavement 178 City of Oakland Realignments 1 240221 markings.

Street Realignments, signal modifications, intersection modifications, guardrail installation, 179 City of Oakland Local Road Safety 1 240222 shoulder construction and other measures to increase the safety of existing roadways.

Reconstruct roadway network to address traffic safety concerns, rehabilitate the roadway surfaces Mandela Parkway and 3rd Street Corridor to withstand truck traffic and address rail crossings, and provide streetscapes conducive to 180 City of Oakland Commercial/Industrial Area Street Reconstruction 1 240279 commercial and industrial development Melrose - Coliseum District Street Reconstruction (formerly 'Oakland Coliseum Transportation Reconstruct Coliseum Way and 50th Avenue to handle heavy truck traffic, reduce safety hazards 181 City of Oakland Infrastructure Access Improvements'?) 1 240290 due to sight distance, and provide bicycle and pedestrian safety facilities.

(Local Road Safety )Re-alignment and addition of bike ACTAC lanes to Foothill Road between Muirwood Drive North Re-alignment and addition of bike lanes to Foothill Road between Muirwood Drive North and 182 City of Pleasanton and Highland Oaks 3 240286 Highland Oaks City of San Lake Chabot Road Stabilization (Chabot Ter to Astor Meeting 183 Leandro Dr) 2 240306 Road embankment stabilization from Chabot Terrace to Astor Dr in San Leandro Agenda 5C. Street-scape Improvements Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 65 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 13 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

To create a safe, comfortable and attractive pedestrian main street for downtown Castro Valley, a series of street improvements along Castro Valley Boulevard between San Miguel and Strobridge. Calm the traffic environment by reconfiguring traffic lanes and providing on-street parking with shared bicycle access while still maintaining adequate traffic capacity on the Boulevard. Create a beautiful and inviting pedestrian environment that will encourage the community to access Castro Valley Boulevard for shopping, dining and entertainment by providing widened sidewalks Castro Valley Streetscape Improvements Project Phase with ample seating areas, a canopy of street trees and planter beds, landscaped bulb-outs, street 184 Alameda County II 2 240102 furnishings and gateway markers. E. 14th Street/Mission Blvd. (Route 185) Streetscape Improvement Project extends from 162nd E. 14th / Mission Blvd. Streetscape Improvements Avenue to Rufus Court (Hayward City Limit). The project features include new widen sidewalks, 185 Alameda County Project Phase II & III* 2 240103 transit stop improvements, intersection bulb-outs, landscaping, and raised medians. The project includes installing wider sidewalks, reducing travel lanes, improving transit facilities, planting street trees, constructing medians, and enhancing pedestrian lighting along Hesperian 186 Alameda County Hesperian Blvd Streetscape Improvements Project 2 240104 Blvd. between San Leandro city limit and Hayward city limit East Lewelling Blvd. Streetscape Improvements Project The project includes wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, median islands, and landscaping along E. 187 Alameda County Phase II 2 240110 Lewelling Blvd. between Mission Blvd. and Meekland Avenue.

The proposed project entails implementing median, sidewalk and crosswalk improvements to make this roadway easier to navigate for pedestrians and to create a more enticing environment that 188 City of Albany State Highway Preservation (San Pablo Ave?) 1 240354 attract pedestrian oriented businesses. The Centerville PDA is one of the key locations in the City’s vision to become “strategically urban” and Fremont Boulevard streetscape improvements is one of the highest-priority implementation measures in the entire Framework Plan. The City seeks funding for the following changes to Fremont Boulevard in order to promote an attractive pedestrian area and “complete street” in the heart of the Centerville PDA surrounding the Centerville Train Station: narrowing lane widths/eliminating travel lanes, introducing on-street parking to slow traffic; adding bulbouts, crosswalks, medians, and landscaping; adding new street furniture, street lighting, and signage; 189 City of Fremont Fremont Boulevard Streetscape Project 3 240257 adding bike lanes and bicycle parking.

ACTAC City of San San Leandro East 14th Street Streetscape 190 Leandro Improvements* 2 240270 Streetscape Improvements along East 14th Street

Pedestrian, bicycle, streetscape, transit center, traffic safety, signal and parking improvements to

City of San support Transit Oriented Development along major travel corridors in San Leandro including Meeting

191 Leandro San Leandro City Streetscape Improvements 2 240271 MacArthur Blvd, Marina Blvd, Doolittle Dr., Bancroft Drive, W. Juana Ave and Davis Street. Agenda

5D. Coordination with Freeways Attachment

192 Better coordination between freeway and local streets Improve connections between local streets and freeways Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 66 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 14 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

Study and develop design of a full interchange for Interstate 80/580 at University Avenue in 193 City of Berkeley I-80 University Ave interchange - Study 1 240164 Berkeley to enable eastbound I-80 vehicles to exit and travel westbound. 5E. Complete Streets Implementation of Complete Streets to improve mobility for all modes: transit, bike, walking, 194 Complete Streets - implementation driving

Provides bike/ped improvements, street-scape elements to support BRT on Telegraph Bicycle/Pedestrian Enhancements on East Bay BRT Avenue/International Blvd./E.14th street. Includes non-transit ped bulbs, lighting, curb cuts and 195 AC Transit corridor (non-transit elements) 240371 other related improvements. Does not include transit elements, but supports project: # 22455 Rehabilitate and repair local streets and roads in Berkeley following Complete Streets policies, including street resurfacing, preventative maintenance, sidewalk repair and replacement, ADA curb ramp installation, bus pad installation and low-impact development Green Streets elements where 196 City of Berkeley Local Streets and Roads O&M 1 240224 feasible.

Berkeley Complete Streets Road Network Improvements. Restore 1-way streets to 2-way operation per Southside Plan. Reconfigure Shattuck Avenue in Downtown Berkeley for continuous 2-way Non-Capacity Increasing Local Road Intersection traffic on west leg of Shattuck Square per Downtown Plan. Implement West Berkeley Circulation 197 City of Berkeley Modifications and Channelization 1 240228 Master Plan. Study and develop reconfiguration designs for Adeline per UC Berkeley Study. A bicycle/pedestrian/roadway and transit lane in existing Alameda County right-of-way between the East Dublin BART station and Dougherty Road and widening of Dougherty Road from Scarlett Drive to North City Limit to accomodate transit and bicyclists. Environmental review and 198 City of Dublin Iron Horse bicycle, pedestrian and transit route 4 21460 preliminary engineering is complete. Route 24 /Caldecott Tunnel Enhancements -Settlement Intersection improvements, bicycle and transit access improvements and soundwalls on Route 24 in 199 City of Oakland Agreement projects 1 230171 Oakland Southside roadway reversion to 2-way. Shattuck Ave/Square 2-way west leg. West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan. Adeline/Ashby corridor. Berkeley Comments: • Critical Initiative #4 - Southside Plan Implementation • Critical Initiative #1080 - Downtown Plan • Critical Initiative #1041 - West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan • Departmental Initiative #936: Traffic Signal Priorities

200 City of Berkeley Complete Streets: Roadway Network Improvements 1 ACTAC 5F. Traffic calming 201 City of Hayward Local Road Safety 2 240029 A lump sum to implement various traffic calming measures on local residential streets Redesign and construct the Harrison-Oakland Avenue couplet as two two-way streets. Incorporate Meeting 202 City of Oakland Harrison-Oakland Avenue Major Street Improvements 1 240278 bicycle facilities, bus enhancements, and pedestrian crossings. Agenda

5G. ITS/Signals Attachment 203 ITS/SMART Corridors Ongoing implementation Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 67 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 15 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description Provides citywide traffic signal system elements to provide an ITS including new controllers, system communication, facilities, detection, upgrades and relocations, emergency vehicle preemption, speed, level of service monitoring along with advance detection and implementation of City of San Adaptive Traffic Control on critical corridors of Hesperian Bl, Washington Av, San Leandro Bl, 204 Leandro Traffic Signal Systems Upgrade 2 230198 Marina Bl, Doolittle Dr, Bancroft Av, Davis St and East 14th St. and all artierals. 5H Signage 205 Wayfinding Signage Installation of effective wayfinding signage 6. Local Streets and Roads Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Program - RTP ID # 240387 6A. Pavement Rehab 206 Pavement rehabilitation Pavement rehabilitation and resurfacing to meet local PCI targets 207 Alameda County Pavement Rehab 240108 Pavement Rehabilitation at various locations in Alameda County unincorporated areas

Rehabilitate San Leandro streets, including street resurfacing, preventive maintenance, sidewalk City of San San Leandro Local Streets & Roads Rehabilitation repair and replacement, ADA curb ramp installation, and bus pad installation to attain a minimum 208 Leandro Project 2 240302 PCI average of 69. 209 City of Albany Buchanan Overcrossing 1 Rehabilitation, includes resurfacing and traffic improvements 6B. Maintenance / Operations 210 O& M for local streets and roads Support maintenance and operations of local streets and roads infrastructure Solano Avenue is centrally located in Albany and is one of the two main commercial districts in the City. In 1995, the City rehabilitated the pavement and added streetscape and pedestrian improvements to the segment between San Pablo Avenue and Masonic Avenue (west of the BART track). This project entails pavement resurfacing and implementation of pedestrians improvements, Local Streets and Roads O&M (Solano Ave btw such as bulb outs at intersections, curb ramps, and visible crosswalks at selected intersections along 211 City of Albany Masonic and Berkeley city limit) 1 240342 Solano Avenue from Masonic Avenue to the Berkeley City Limit.

Project located between the intersection of the Richmond City Limits and Buchanan Avenue. 212 City of Albany Local Streets and Roads O&M 1 240343 Project includes pavement resurfacing, utility undergrounding, and installation of bike lanes.

Livermore's Pavement Maintenance Needs 2015-2035 derived from MTC P-TAP Round 11

213 City of Livermore Local Streets and Roads O&M 4 240298 Pavement Management Update Report ACTAC Newark local streets and roads maintenance including pavement resurfacing, pedestrian and bicycle 214 City of Newark Local Streets and Roads O&M 3 240285 infrastructure replacement, restriping, base failure repair, etc. Provides ITS elements including new controllers, signal interconnect/coordination, transit priority,

speed and level of service monitoring, real time arrival information, CCTV, incident management, Meeting

Arterial Management Program City of Oakland ITS and emergency vehicle preemption along Hegenberger Road, 73rd Avenue, 98th Avenue, East 14th Agenda Local Streets and Road Operations: Citywide Intelligent Street, International Boulevard, San Leandro Street, High St, MacArthur Boulevard, Telegraph 215 City of Oakland Traffic System (ITS), Signal Operations 1 230169 Avenue and Broadway. Attachment

Rehabilitate Oakland Streets, including street resurfacing, preventive maintenance, sidewalk repair Page 216 City of Oakland Non-Capacity Increasing Local Road Rehabilitation 1 240219 and replacement, ADA curb ramp installation, and bus pad installation 05/03/11 Item 4.3 68 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 16 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description Local Streets and roads O&M: Repair and maintenance of street system (excluding roadway rehab and repair). Includes Signal Operations, Striping and Signs Repair and maintenance of street system (excluding roadway rehab and repair). Includes Signal 217 City of Oakland maintenance 1 240220 Operations, Striping and Signs maintenance 6C. ITS 218 SMART corridors coordination Ongoing program operation

I-580 SMART corridor (Local Streets and Roads) O&M Livermore's share of I-580 Smart Corridor operations and maintenance plus local coordinated 219 City of Livermore - Livermore share 4 240300 signal systems

Enhancing and maintaining street system in the City. This funding will also provide maintenance 220 City of Alameda O&M / ITS 1 needs for ITS infrastructure and transit needs at bus stops. 7. Highway, Freeway, Safety and Non-Capacity Improvements Program - RTP ID # 240388 7A Interchange Improvements

I-80 at Ashby Avenue - Reconstuct the Ashby Avenue Interchange. The proposed interchange City of elements include construction of a new bridge to replace the two existing bridges and construction 221 Emeryville I-80 Ashby Interchange 1 240318 of two roundabouts.

I-80 EB Powell Street Off-ramp Bus Bay or Additional Lane - Construct bus bays on the I-80 EB off-ramp to Powell Street and on Frontage Road near the intersection of Powell Street and Frontage City of Road. Optionally, the EB off-ramp may be widened to provide an additional right turn lane onto 222 Emeryville I-80 / Powell Street Interchange Bus stops 1 240320 Powell Street.

Reconstruct interchange tio accommodate widening of A Street from 5 lanes to six lanes

underneath the overpass. This will require constructing one addiitional freeway lane in each ACTAC 223 City of Hayward I-880/A Street Interchange Reconstruction 2 240047 direction. This would also involve intersection and signal modifications. 224 I-580 Fallon interchange improvements 4 225 I-580 Hacienda interchange improvements 4 7B Operations incl. Ramp Metering Meeting Agenda 226 Congestion relief Ongoing program for congestion relief on/for freeways/highways

227 Safety improvements Ongoing program for safety improvements on/for freeways/highways Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 69 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 17 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

For the I-880, I-238 and I-580 corridors in the Central County Freeway Study, install traffic Central Alameda County Integrated Corridor Mobility monitoring (CCTV, CMS, vehicle detection systems), emergency vehicle priority, transit signal Program and Adaptive Ramp Metering Integrated priority, adaptive ramp metering, ramp metering stations, ramp metering HOV bypass lanes, Corridor Mobility I-880 project (580/80/880 to SR- trailblazer signs, integration of arterial traffic signals, communication networks within the study 228 ACTC MTC 237) – and South County LATIPs) 230091 limits. 7C Maintenance 229 Maintenance of state highways Maintenance of state highways and freeways 7D Soundwalls 230 ACTC Soundwalls 98208 Fulfills a countywide programmatic set aside to construct soundwalls

To provide funds to construct soundwalls in the Central Alameda County Freeway Study area 231 ACTC Soundwalls - Central Alameda County Freeway Study 2 230094 corridor at locations that are not associated with a specific LATIP project.

Construct innovative soundwall on Interstate 80/580 at Aquatic Park between University Avenue 232 City of Berkeley I-80 Aquatic Park Soundwall 1 240252 Interchange and Ashby Avenue Interchange. 7E Freeway Service Patrol 233 Freeway Service patrol Ongoing operation of the regional Freeway Service Patrol tow-truck service 7F ITS 234 Maintenance of state highways Maintenance of state highways and freeways 8. Bridge Improvements Program - RTP ID # 240389 8A Bridge Replacement Replace the existing railroad and vehicular bridges with one structure that can provide the only Lifeline access from Alameda. Provide dedicated bike lanes, median, and sidewalks. The Bridge is located on the Oakland Estuary between Marina Drive in Alameda and Tidewater Avenue in 235 Alameda County High Street Bridge Replacement Project* 1 240099 Oakland

Replace the existing railroad and vehicular bridges with one structure that can provide the only ACTAC Lifeline access from Alameda. Provide dedicated bike lanes, median, and sidewalks. The Bridge is 236 Alameda County Park Street Bridge Replacement Project* 1 240100 located on the Oakland Estuary between Park Street in Alameda and 29th Avenue in Oakland Meeting Agenda Retrofit the existing bridge with one structure that can provide the only lifeline access from

Fruitvale Avenue (Miller Sweeney) Lifeline Bridge Alameda. Provide dedicated bike lanes, median, and sidewalks. The Bridge is located on the Attachment 237 Alameda County Project* 2 240324 Oakland Estuary between Tilden Way in Alameda and Fruitvale Avenue in Oakland. 8B Bridge Expansion and Maintenance Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 70 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 18 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description Bernal Bridge (west) second bridge construction (Non- Capacity Increasing Local Bridge 238 City of Pleasanton Rehabilitation/Replacement/Retrofit) 4 240175 Bernal Bridge (west) second bridge construction. 8C Bridge retrofit and repair Replace the existing railroad and vehicular bridges with one structure that can provide the only Lifeline access from Alameda. Provide dedicated transit lanes, bike lanes, median, and sidewalks. City of Alameda / Fruitvale Avenue Lifeline Bridge Project (rail and The Bridge is located on the Oakland Estuary between Tilden Way in Alameda and Fruitvale 239 Alameda County roadway) 1 240101 Avenue in Oakland

ACTAC Meeting Agenda Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 71 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 19 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description 8D Bridge Operations

Maintain and operate High Street, Park Street, and Miller Sweeney (Fruitvale) bridges that connect 240 Alameda County Estuary Bridge Operations 1 240105 the City of Oakland and the City of Alameda. 9. Transportation and Land Use Program (or PDA Program) - RTP ID # 240391

241 TOD / PDA - implementation program Develop PDA, TOD and GOA plans and implement plan recommendations 242 ACTC CEQA Mitigation Toolkit (for land use) Develop a toolkit for land-use development that supports SCS 243 ACTC TOD-streetscape: Telegraph/International Boulevard* multi 244 Alameda County Castro Valley BART TOD 2 Combines parking, smart growth / TOD, transit connectivity, bicycle / pedestrian, signage and other access modes essential to meet growing demand for BART services. Prices are broad brush, but comprehensive station plans in tandem with VTA's BART capacity study will give better 245 BART Station Access projects (Alameda County portion) 22675 definition to this large project over time. 246 City of Alameda West End Transit Hub 1

Implement the San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements Plan in Berkeley to support focused growth 247 City of Berkeley San Pablo Avenue Public Improvements 1 240214 along designated Priority Development Area corridor.

To provide necessary infrastructural investments to support focused growth in Transit-Oriented Developments in Berkeley, including Downtown Berkeley and the Ashby BART Station, and all of 248 City of Berkeley Transit-Oriented Development Access Infrastructure 1 240321 Berkeley's designated Priority Development Areas.

This program consists of street improvements and pedestrian enhancements within Downtown Dublin TOD : West Dublin and downtown Dublin Dublin (a Priority Development Area) to support and encourage transit oriented development 249 City of Dublin Program* 4 240267 within walking distance of the West Dublin BART Station. Fremont’s 110-acre Midtown District is planned as the heart of the Central Fremont Priority Development Area (Central PDA), a mixed-use transit-oriented district located between the Fremont BART Station and the Fremont Boulevard transit corridor. Currently, the Midtown district

street network does not fully support the planned future uses: a new street (referred to as “New ACTAC Middle Road”) and the extension of another street (Capitol Ave. from State Street to Fremont Blvd.) are necessary to provide connectivity and to reduce block lengths to a comfortable walking distance. This project proposes to construct the two new street segments and associated streetscapes, and to upgrade the streetscape along the existing length of Capitol Ave. with enhanced Downtown Pedestrian Streetscape Improvements on landscaping, paving materials, street furniture and streetlighting. This attractive public space will Meeting Capitol Avenue and New Middle Road in Central encourages pedestrian activity and serve as the cultural, civic, and entertainment center for Fremont Agenda 250 City of Fremont Fremont PDA 3 240258 over the next 20 years. Attachment PDA Enhancement / Regional Air Quality and Climate 251 City of Livermore Protection Strategies 4 240256 Construct public infrastructure and enhancements to support TOD in the PDAs Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 72 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 20 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

Dumbarton TOD Transportation Infrastructure Provide funding for infrastructure support to Priority Development Areas, including the City of 252 City of Newark Improvements 3 240293 Newark's Dumbarton TOD Project. Dumbarton TOD/Bay Trail Connectivity Pedestrian and 253 City of Newark Bicycle Railroad Crossing 3 Transit Village - Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART. Construction of structured parking to replace Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Transit Enhancements current surface lot at the BART station. Reconfigured and expanded connections between 254 City of Oakland (Coliseum BART parking structure ) 1 240230 BART/Oakland Airport Connector/Capitol Corrior/Oakland Coliseum Arena.

West Oakland PDA Transit Enhancement. This project includes improvements to all modes, including streetscape, bike and ped access, and infrastructure enhancements to encourage 255 City of Oakland West Oakland PDA/TOD Transit Enhancements* 1 240231 development and reuse around the West Oakland BART station and environs.

Fruitvale/Diamond PDA Transit Enhancements - Streetscape improvements including pedestrian- scaled lighting, Sidewalk and pedestrian crossing improvements, landscaping, bus shelters, and 256 City of Oakland Fruitvale/Diamond PDA: Transit Enhancements* 1 240233 bicycle facilities.

Eastmont Transit Center PDA - planning and construction of bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements at the Eastmont Transit Center and along major bus route corridors along 73rd 257 City of Oakland Eastmont Transit Center PDA: Transit Enhancements 1 240234 Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard and Bancroft Avenue within the PDA.

MacArthur BART Station Priority Development Area - enhanced bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections to the BART station within the PDA boundaries. Projects include streetscape MacArthur BART Station PDA/TOD: Transit improvements on Telegraph Avenue, Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, and West MacArthur 258 City of Oakland Enhancements* 1 240235 Boulevard, and bicycle connectivity improvements. Lake Merritt BART Specific Plan Implementation. Upon comletion of the Specific Plan, numerous

improvements will be required to re-connect the component areas of the study through multiple ACTAC transportation improvements: Chinatown, Lake Merritt BART station area, Laney College, Oakland Museum, Jack London Square area, and the Estuary. Probable projects include bicycle lanes and paths, transit circulators, improved and redesigned streets, bridges, and streetscapes, sidewalks, and a possible parking garage. Because the Plan is not yet complete, we recommend a placeholder of $5

Lake Merritt BART Specific Plan Implementation.: million in the CWTP to ensure that the plan process, EIR, and any additional studies can be Meeting

259 City of Oakland Transit Enhancements* 1 240236 completed prior to design development and construction requests. Agenda

Broadway Valdez Specific Plan Area Transit Access Attachment 260 City of Oakland Improvements 1 240323 Broadway Valdez Specific Plan Area Transit Access Improvements. 261 City of Oakland TOD: 19th Street BART* 1 Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 73 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 21 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description This project constructs street and pedestrian improvements in the Downtown San Leandro TOD City of San area to encourage transit oriented development within walking distance to the downtown core, San 262 Leandro Downtown San Leandro TOD* 2 240269 Leandro BART and East 14th Street. This project constructs street and pedestrian improvements in the Bayfair BART PDA area to City of San encourage transit oriented development within walking distance to the Bayfair BART Station, 263 Leandro Bay Fair BART Transit Village (TOD) 2 240296 Bayfair Mall, Hesperian Blvd and East 14th Street.

Develop Transit Oriented Development on west parking lot of Ashby BART Station, including supportive, workforce, and affordable housing, replacement BART parking, improved bike, ped, 264 in Berkeley Asbhy BART TOD & Station Capacity Expansion* 1 230135 and transit access, BART Capacity improvements include new escalators. 10. Planning and Outreach Program - RTP ID # 240392 10A Planning Studies and Implementation Planning studies for corridors, specified areas, programs Ongoing program. Examples of potential studies include: corridor studies, PDA/GOA plans, freight- 265 and projects movement, etc

Contributes local share of continuing the planning and environmental work after the HSRA funded the first 20 months of the project team effort. Given the state budget crisis, HSRA funding for this Altamont Corridor Acquisition & Development/Short Phase II Corridor is unlikely. This funding would move the project from the Alternative Analysis to 266 ACE Haul Freight (Planning and Environmental phase) 240276 the final stages of the EIR/EIS. Marketing Strategies Study identifying what keeps commuters in their cars and out of public transit. Similar to the Caltrans license plate study, the Altamont Commuter Express seeks to gain a deeper understanding of why commuters continue to drive over the Altamont Pass amongst some of the most congested highways in California instead of taking alternative modes of transit. This study would identify deep consumer insights to help ACE develop and implement effective marketing and communication strategies aimed at digging deeper into the commuters’ thoughts and feelings about their car, public transit, traffic congestion, etc. This study will identify the deep mental and emotional universal orientations that structure and guide how people think, feel, and act

267 ACE Marketing strategies study 240299 with regard to commuting. ACTAC

This plan will examine how current and planned rail systems (ACE, BART, CalTrain, Amtrak San Joaquins, Amtrak Capitol Corridor, SMART, CAHSR) integrate with each other, other modes of Meeting 268 ACE Northern California Mega Region Rail Plan 240301 transit, the transportation network, and land use patterns. Agenda

Implement multi-modal access and circulation projects identified in West Berkeley Circulation Attachment 269 City of Berkeley West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan Implementation 1 240229 Master Plan and West Berkeley Project Environmental Impact Report. Page

10B Promotion/Outreach and Education about Transit, Bike, Walk, Multimodal Access (incl SR2T) 05/03/11 Item 270 Outreach/Promotion/Education Covers transit, bike, walking, paratransit, alternatives to SOV driving, and other support programs 4.3 74 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 22 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description 10C Multi-Lingual Educational Materials Creating non-English (and culture-sensitive) versions of transportation marketing and education 271 Multi-lingual outreach materials 10D School Promotion Outreach to schools and school districts for promoting alternative modes, as well as coordination in 272 Outreach to schools/ students land-use/ PDA development 11. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Management Program - RTP ID # 240393 11A Parking programs 273 Parking programs / projects Parking upgrades (infrastructure, equipment) 274 Parking Management/Policies Parking policies, demand management, pricing, unbundling, etc Replace Center Street Garage with new public parking facility to serve the Downtown Berkeley BART Station and proposed Transit Center. The Downtown Berkleley Transit Center Parking Facility will serve visitors to Berkeley and travellers connecting to BART, AC Transit, and 275 City of Berkeley Downtown Berkeley Transit Center Parking Facility 1 240215 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and UC Berkeley shuttles.

Completion of a parking management plan incorporating market based pricing and regular review of parking occupancy and pricing to best serve parking demand. Installation of modern single space and multi-space meters, directional signage, automated occupancy detectors, and other appropriate 276 City of Oakland Parking Management 1 240239 technology.

277 City of Pleasanton Park and Ride construction on Bernal Avenue 4 240165 Construction of a 100 stall park and ride facility adjacent to the Bernal at I-680 interchange 11B Transit Cards 278 Transit cards Examples include Clipper card, Discounted fares, multi-purpose smartcards, etc 11C School Programs 279 Safe Routes to School implementation Ongoing program implementation Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program and Safe Routes to Schools programs. Includes school safety Local Road Safety - Neighborhood Traffic Safety and neighborhood traffic reviews and public education and crossing guards, as well as installation

280 City of Oakland Program and Safe Routes to Schools programs 1 240223 of hardscape traffic calming devices (bulbouts, pedestrian safety refuges, etc) ACTAC In city of 281 Alameda Expand the Safe Routes to Schools Program 1 11D GHG Reduction Meeting Agenda 282 GHG reduction Supports local Climate Action Plans, SCS, or addresses sea-level change Attachment 11E TDM (i.e. GRH, 511) 283 Guaranteed Ride Home Program Ongoing program implementation Page Develop Countywide TDM/parking guidelines/ technical 05/03/11 Item 284 ACTC assistance program 4.3 75 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 23 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

Enlarge Berkeley's pilot Value-Priced Parking and Transportation Alternatives TDM Program. Elements include upgrades to parking meters, occupancy analysis, demand-responsive pricing, enhanced enforcement, 511 Park info and wayfinding signage . Coordinated with marketing, transit 285 City of Berkeley Parking Value-Pricing Parking/TDM Program 1 230122 passes, carsharing expansion, bikesharing, bike/ped and other TDM programs.

Downtown TDM program, including operating support for free downtown shuttle circulator (The "Free B"), TDM coordination, funding of employee Transit Pass programs, and other TDM 286 City of Oakland Transportation Demand Management (Downtown) 1 240238 strategies, and planning for future downtown mobility improvements 11F Pricing Programs 287 Pricing programs Examples include congestion pricing, HOT lanes, variable parking fees 11G Shuttles, Streetcars - Alternatives to Fixed Transit)

288 Shuttles Local shuttles to supplement fixed transit route service in support of TDM. Ongoing program Provides connecting shuttles to move ACE passenger to either other modes of transit or to their ultimate destination. Partnership with VTA, LAVTA, CCCTA, and private providers to shuttle 289 ACE ACE Connecting Shuttle Services 240303 ACE passengers to employment centers closing the 'last mile' of their commute.

290 in Oakland Senior Shuttle Expansion 1 City of Oakland or Bay Area Community Services (BACS) O&M Costs $85K/year 291 in W. Oakland Youth library shuttle-W. Oakland 1 $50-60K/Year 11H Carsharing 292 Carsharing 293 Auto Loan Program - CBTP element 11i Education and Marketing

ACTAC 294 Education and Marketing Examples include real-time transit information, 511, etc 11J Travel Training 295 Travel training Programs to educate people how to use transit , tailored to their needs Meeting

12. Goods Movement Program - RTP ID # 240394 Agenda Attachment 296 Goods Movement Program Improvements in support of freight transportation to support economic vitality 12A Truck Parking Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 76 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 24 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls Table 2: DRAFT Public Agency PROGRAM Submittals for the RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County * Specific suggestions from members of the public through Outreach Activities

RTP ID# (if Sponsor/ Planning application Location Program Name Area submitted) Project Description

Local Air Quality and Climate Protection Strategies Implements the recommendations of the ACTC Board adopted Truck Parking Facility Feasibility 297 ACTC (Implementation of 2008 Truck Parking Study) 230117 and Location Study (December 2008) funded by Caltrans and managed by the CMA. 12B Port Operations Improvements Install electric utility infrastructure throughout the Port's marine terminal area to provide shore-side 298 Port of Oakland Shore power for ships at the Port of Oakland 1 240190 power connections that allow vessels at-berth to turn off their diesel auxiliary engines. 12C Truck Impacts to Local Streets - Improvements For

Woodland - 81st Avenue Industrial Zone street Reconstruct goods movement streets within the Woodland-81st Avenue industrial area to withstand 299 City of Oakland reconstruction 1 240280 heavy truck traffic; modify gateways, provide at-grade safe RR crossings. 12D Truck Routing

Provision of truck storage facilities away from residential areas and improvement/re-routing of Goods Movement: Truck Facilities, Truck Route regional truck routes on Oakland City streets. Improve industrial load-bearing streets to withstand 300 City of Oakland Rehabilitation 1 240237 impact of truck movement. 12E Freight Operations Improvements (rail, roads, port) 301 Truck Services at Oakland Army Base (ROW) 1 $20 million (land costs only) 13. Priority Development Area (PDA) Support - Non-Transportation Program - RTP ID # 240395 302 Non-transportation infrastructure in PDAs Includes utilities, sewers, drainage to support development in PDAs 14. Environmental Mitigation Program - RTP ID # 240396 303 Environmental Mitigation for major projects Examples include off-site mitigations, banking 15. Transportation Technology and Revenue Enhancement Program - RTP ID # 240397 304 Stopwaste.org Transportation Energy from Waste 305 Alternative and sustainable fuel sources - use of 306 Alternative Fuel stations - comprehensive network of

ACTAC Meeting Agenda Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 77 B

4/27/20114:54 PM 25 Table 2 Draft Programs_with_sponsors_CWTP_2012_04-27-11_CC.xls

This page intentionally left blank.

ACTAC Meeting Agenda Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 78 B TABLE 3 - Draft Public Agency Project Submittals for RTP/SCS and CWTP-TEP Call for Projects for Alameda County

Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions) COUNTYWIDE LOCAL PROJECTS

Makes major transit improvements to the most heavily-traveled corridors in AC Transit's service area. The Full-Scale Bus Rapid Transit improvements would include: dedicated lanes, traffic signal Bus rapid 1 AC Transit AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) priority, new transit stations, boarding platforms, pre-paid boarding. transit multi $211.0 38.7 0 173.1 Provides for major transit improvements to one of the most heavily- traveled corridors in AC Transit's service area. The Full-Scale Bus Rapid Transit improvements would include queue jump lanes and peak period travel lanes, traffic signal priority, new transit stations or boarding platforms, real-time passenger information and rider Bus rapid 2 AC Transit AC Transit Grand-MacArthur BRT amenities. transit 1 $36.0 3.6 33 0

To expand AC Transit transfer centers for express and local bus service in Central Alameda County (including Park and Ride lots near Southland Shopping Center or Chabot College) and Northern AC Transit transfer station/park-and-ride facility in Alameda Alameda County (including downtown transit center at 3 AC Transit County (1. Central, 2. Northern) Center/Shattuck in Downtown Berkeley). Local bus 1,2 $40.0 10 30 0 Constructs HOV/HOT lanes on I-680 from Route 237 to Route 84 in I-680 for NB HOV/HOT lane from SR 237 to SR 84 (includes Santa Clara and Alameda Counties, including ramp metering 4 ACTC ramp metering and auxiliary lanes) throughout the project limits. Freeway 3 $203.6 0 182.1 21.5 I-680 widening for NB HOV/HOT Lane from Route 84 to 5 ACTC Alcosta Blvd Construct a HOV/HOT lane on I-680 from Route 84 to Alcosta Blvd Freeway 4 $136.4 0 136.4 0 I-680 widening for SB HOV/HOT from Alcosta Blvd to Route 6 ACTC 84 Constructs HOV/HOT lane on I-680 from Alcosta Blvd to Route 84 Freeway 4 $136.4 0 136.4 0 Convert the I-580 Westbound HOV Lane to an Express Lane Lane from Greenville Road in Livermore to San Ramon Rd./Foothill Rd in Dublin/Pleasanton. Access limited to designated ingress/egress 7 ACTC I-580 WB Express Lane from Greenville Road to Foothill Blvd points. Freeway 4 16.5 0.0 12.1 4.4 I-580 widening for HOV and Aux Lanes EB from Hacienda Rd to Greenville Rd and WB from Greenville Road to Foothill/San 8 ACTC Ramon Rd Widen I-580 in both directions to add HOV and auxiliary lanes. Freeway 4 $291.3 00291.3

Extend the existing northbound I-880 HOV lane from north of

Hacienda Avenue to Hegenberger. The first phase, funded through ACTAC the Central County Freeway Study LATIP, would extend from north of Hacienda to north of Davis in Planning Area 2. The second phase would continue the extension to Hegenberger in Planning Area 1. Both phases would be converted to HOT lanes. Phase 1 includes two additional LATIP projects that would be done concurrently with the Meeting HOV/HOT lane extension: Washington Avenue Interchange I-880 NB HOV/HOT Extension from north of Hacienda to improvements and bridge widening and I-238 Northbound Connector Agenda 9 ACTC Hegenberger - Phase 1 lanes between I-238 and Hegenberger Project. Freeway 1, 2 $207.6 30 177.6 0 Attachment

Extend the existing northbound I-880 HOV lane from north of Hacienda Avenue to Hegenberger. The first phase, funded through Page the Central County Freeway Study LATIP, would extend from north 05/03/11 I-880 NB HOV/HOT Extension from north of Hacienda to of Hacienda to north of Davis in Planning Area 2. The second phase Item 10 ACTC Hegenberger - Phase 2 lanes north from Hacienda Ave would continue the extension to Hegenberger in Planning Area 1. Freeway 2 $68.4 0 68.4 0 4.3 79 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 1 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions)

Construct interchange improvements for the Route 84/I-680 Interchange, widen Route 84 from Pigeon Pass to I-680 and construct 11 ACTC SR 84 / I-680 interchange and SR 84 Widening* aux lanes on I-680 between Andrade and Route 84. Freeway 3 $244.0 0 244 0 Widen I-238 between I-580 and I-880 from 6 lanes to 8 lanes to accomodate an HOV/HOT lanes in both directions. Project would include HOV/HOT connectors at the I-238/I-880 and I-238/I-580 HOV/HOT 12 ACTC I-238 HOV/HOT lane interchanges. Lane 2,4 $216.0 0 216 0 I-580 EB Express (HOT) Lane from Hacienda Road to Convert existing eastbound HOV lane to a two lane Express Lane 13 ACTC Greenville Road Facility. Freeway 4 $19.0 0019

Construct Eastbound Auxiliary Lanes between Isabel Avenue and North Livermore Avenue and North Livermore Avenue and First Street. The project will also widen the Arroyo Las Positas Bridge at I-580 EB Auxiliary Lane Project (Isabel to Livermore Ave; two locations and provide additional improvements to accommodate 14 ACTC Livermore Ave to First) a future Express Lane facility. Freeway 4 $40.0 0040 Construct an improved east-west connection between I-880 and Route 238 (Mission Blvd.) comprised of a combination of new roadways along preserved rights of way and improvements to existing roadways and intersections along Decoto Road, Fremont Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, Alvarado-Niles Road and Route 238 (Mission Major 15 ACTC East-West Connector Project in North Fremont and Union City Boulevard). arterial 2 $190.0 83.3 0 106.7 Provide a northbound 680 to westbound 580 connector and widen the existing westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 loop ramp as a first phase of the interchange improvement project. Includes EB 16 ACTC I-580/I-680 Improvements (NB I-680 to WB I-580) BART bus ramp. 528.0 0.0 528.0 0.0

Provides for the improvements to Northbound I-880 at 23rd and 29th Avenue Interchange by improving the freeway on and off ramp geometrics. The project will also replace the structures of these I-880 at 23rd/29th Avenue interchange safety and access overcrossings. The project also includes modifications of local 17 ACTC improvements streets, landscape enhancement, and construction of a soundwall. Freeway 1 $97.6 3.3 0 98.5

(Project development to ) construct HOV Direct Connectors at I- 18 ACTC I-580/I-680 HOV Direct Connector - Project Development* 580/I-680 Interchange (includes Options 1 & 2 from PID document) Freeway 4 $1,167.0 17.2 $1,149.8 0 Widen Route 84 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from north of Pigeon Pass to Stanley Blvd.; and from 2 lanes to 6 lanes from Stanley Blvd. to Jack Expressway 19 ACTC SR 84 Expressway Widening (Pigeon Pass to Jack London)* London Boulevard. 4 $136.5 10 0 126.5

ACTAC

NB and SB 880 between West A and Winton, and NB 880 between A Street and Paseo Grande. To reduce weaving conflicts between 20 ACTC I-880 NB and SB auxiliary lanes through traffic and exiting traffic at A Street or at Winton Avenue. 2 15.4 0015.4 Construct Auxiliary Lanes on NB and SB I-880 between Whipple

Road and Industrial Parkway West. Meeting

I-880 Auxiliary Lanes between Whipple and Industrial Parkway NB lanes between Industrial Parkway and Alameda Creek SB lanes Agenda 21 ACTC West between Industrial and Whipple Road 2 9.5 009.5 Attachment Reconfigure Interstate 80/580 at Gilman Avenue Interchange to Freeway to ACTC /City providing dual roundabouts to reduce congeston and increase safety Local 22 of Berkeley I-80 Gilman Street Interchange Improvements at IC of I-80, Eastshore Highway and West Frontage Road. Arterial I/C 1 25.2 23.8 0.0 1.4 Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 80 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 2 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions)

This project will increase the mobility between I-680 and I-880 by improving the most direct and heavily used east-west cross-connector corridor in Alameda County. This project will widen Mission Blvd to 3 lanes in each direction throughout the I-680 interchange. It will extend the WB right turn lane from Warm Springs to Mohave. It will extend both WB left turn lanes at Warm Springs an additional 130 ft. It will regrade and rebuild the NB and SB I-680 on and off ramps. It will install 2 new intersections with street lights and storm drain treatment at the NB and SB I-680 on and off ramps. It will relocate ACTC/ City Route 262 Mission Boulevard Cross Connector Improvements existing facilities on WB Mission Blvd between Warm Springs and 23 of Fremont between I-680 and Warm Springs Boulevard Mohave. 3 19.5 19.5 0.0 0.0 Alameda Lewelling Blvd. / Hesperian Blvd. Intersection Improvements Reconfigure lanes to improve traffic circulation and reduce traffic Local 24 County Project (I-880 Hesperian/Lewelling Interchange)* congestion. interchange 2 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0

PHASE 1: The Hayward Yard Maintenance Complex (“HMC”) will include acquisition and use of four warehouses outside of the current west boundary of the yard. The three of these four existing warehouse structures that are proposed for Component Repair, Central Warehouse, and M&E use would be seismically upgraded and retrofitted for BART use, and the fourth would be demolished and a new overhaul shop would be constructed in its place. The existing vehicle inspection area would be enlarged from one bay to four bays. South of Whipple Road work will include additional connecting track, track crossovers, and switches. Phase 2: Storage Tracks will be provided for up to 250 vehicles East side of the Hayward Yard. Including additional connecting track, Commuter track crossovers, and switches. A flyover will be provided access to rail/Urban 25 BART BART Hayward Maintenance Complex and from storage tracks to mainline tracks. heavy rail 2 $585.0 0 579.7 5.3

Extend HOV Lane on NB I-880 from existing HOV terminus at Bay I-880 NB HOV lane extension from existing HOV terminus at Bridge approach to the Maritime on-ramp to provide HOV access 26 Caltrans Bay Bridge approach to Maritime on-ramp from Maritime to the SFOBB toll plaza. Freeway 1 $19.0 000 Constructs HOV lanes on I-880: SB from Hegenberger Road to I-880 widening for SB HOV lane from Hegenberger Rd to Marina Boulevard (includes reconstructing bridges at Davis Street 27 Caltrans Marina Blvd (reconstruct bridge at Davis St. and Marina Blvd.) and Marina Boulevard) Freeway 2 $108.0 00108

28 Caltrans SR 84 WB HOV on ramp from Newark Blvd Route 84 westbound HOV on-ramp from Newark Boulevard Freeway 3 $12.8 000 ACTAC

Serves as Phase 1B of the overall project in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties on I-880 from Route 237 to Fremont Blvd and in Alameda SR 262 (Mission) widening from I-880 to Warm Springs County on Route 262 from I-880 to Warm Springs Blvd. The overall project will reconstruct the Route 262(Mission Boulevard)/Warren Meeting Boulevard (including reconstructing Route 262/I-880 and Route Avenue/I-880 Interchange and widen I-880. This phase 1B will 262/Kato Road interchanges) and reconstruct Union Pacific complete the widening on Route 262 and reconstruct two UPRR Agenda 29 Caltrans Railroad underpasses underpasses. Freeway 3 $58.1 000 Attachment

The project includes expansion and realignment of MSD to accommodate access by AC Transit busses and car sharing. Other Page City of Access Improvements to West End Transit Hub on Mariner project components enhancing access to the West End Transit hub 05/03/11 30 Alameda Square Drive (MSD) include signal modifications, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements. 1 4.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 Item 4.3 81 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 3 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions) 1. Offers Transit access (BRT) between the cities and the PDAs by constructing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) facility from Alameda Naval Station PDA to 12th Street BART station with a goal to provide 15- minute headways. 2. Reduces freeway weaving at I-880/I-980 interchange, enhances pedestrian access in Oakland near Chinatown Senior Center. 3. Provides multimodal access and enhances goods movement on I- 880 and into Oakland and Alameda by providing new on-ramp at Market Street at 6th Street and an off-ramp at Martin Luther King Way and 5th Street. 4. Reduces operational deficiencies for all vehicle movement between the cities of Alameda and Oakland through the Posey and Webster Tubes and in downtown Oakland. 5. Develops bike and pedestrian improvements to enhance connectivity between Chinatown and Jack London Square. 6. Provides a Park and Ride Facility along Mariner Square Drive in Alameda near the Posey Tube entrance. 7. Incorporates Intelligent Transportation Systems along the freeway and on major arterials including Webster Street and Ralph Appezatto City of I880 Broadway/Jackson Interchange, ramp and circulation Memorial Parkway in Alameda; and 6th Street, 5th Street, Broadway, Alameda/City Improvements; and Alameda Point, Downtown Oakland, and 8. Implements sustainability principles in design, construction, and op 31 of Oakland Jack London SquareTransit Access multi 1 $189.3 0 178.2 8.1

This project proposes to widen approximately 1.9 miles of Dougherty Road from Sierra lane to North City Limit. The project will widen the existing 4-lane roadway to 6 lanes, construct Class II bicycle Major 32 City of Dublin Dougherty Road Widening from Sierra Lane to North city Limit lanes, landscaped median and street lighting. Arterial 4 18.4 11.0 0.0 7.4

This project proposes to widen Dublin Boulevard from Sierra Court to Dublin Court in the City of Dublin. The project includes widening of Dublin Boulevard from 4 to 6 lanes, construction of Class II bike Major 33 City of Dublin Dublin Boulevard Widening from Sierra Court to Dublin Court lanes and median landscaping. Arterial 4 4.2 3.5 0.0 0.7

I-580/Fallon Road I/C Improvements (Phase 2): Reconstruction of overcrossing to provide four-lanes in each direction; reconstruction of the southbound to eastbound loop on-ramp; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to provide two exit lanes with two left turn and two right turn lanes; widening of the eastbound on-ramp; widening of

the westbound off-ramp to provide two left turn and two right turn ACTAC lanes; widening the westbound on-ramp. I-580/Hacienda Drive I/C Improvements: Reconstruction of overcrossing to provide additional northbound lane; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to include a third left-turn lane; modifying the I-580 Interchange Improvements at Hacienda Drive and Fallon Local

westbound loop on-ramp; and widening the westbound off-ramp to Meeting 34 City of Dublin Road – Phase II include a third left-turn lane. interchange 4 37.6 16.0 0.0 21.6 Agenda

This project will extend and widen Scarlett Drive from Dougherty Attachment Scarlett Drive Extension from Dougherty Road to Dublin Road to Dublin Boulevard and relocate Iron Horse Trail along 35 City of Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive located in the City of Dublin. Collector 4 12.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 Add a 350' long west bound exclusive left turn lane on the Powell Page City of Street Bridge at the intersection of Christie Avenue. This will be the Major 05/03/11 Item 36 Emeryville Powell Street Bridge Widening at Christie Avenue second westbound left turn lane at Christie. Arterial 1 $4.8 0 4.8 0 4.3 82 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 4 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions)

City of Auto Mall Parkway Cross Connector Widening between I-680 Widening of Auto Mall Parkway from four to six lanes including Major 37 Fremont and I-880 intersection improvements and widening of bridge over UPRR. arterial 3 24.4 24.4 0.0 0.0

Serves as Phase 2 of the State Route 262/I-880 Freeway Interchange Reconstruction and I-880 Widening Project. Phases 1a & 1b includes direct connectors between Route 262 with HOV bypass lanes along the on-ramps, and freeway widening to provide for the completion of HOV lanes from Alameda County to the Santa Clara County line. City of Route 262/I-880 interchange improvements, Ph 2 -Construct This application is for the Phase 2 project - Grade Separation of Freeway/Maj 38 Fremont grade separation at Warren Avenue/Union Pacific RR Warren Avenue and Union Pacific Railroad tracks or Arterial 3 78.0 0.0 0.0 78.0 Extend Fremont Boulevard (four-lane roadway with Class II bike lanes on both side and construction of portion of the Bay Trail (Class I bike facility)) on the west side of the roadway) from its southerly City of Extend Fremont Boulevard to connect to I-880/Dixon Landing terminus at Lakeview Boulevard to connect with Dixon Landing Major 39 Fremont Road Road in Milipitas. arterial 3 47.8 47.8 0.0 0.0 Widen Fremont Blvd to 6 lanes and 2 bike lanes from Grimmer Blvd City of to I-880, install new traffic signals at Grimmer Blvd intersection and Major 40 Fremont Widen Fremont Boulevard from I-880 to Grimmer Boulevard Industrial Drive intersection. arterial 3 4.6 4.6 0.0 0.0

1) Widen Peralta Blvd from 1 lane each direction to 2 lanes and a bike lane each direction between Fremont Blvd and Paseo Padre Pkwy, and between Paseo Padre Pkwy and Mowry. 2) Widen Mowry Ave from 1 lane each direction to 2 lanes and a City of bike lane each direction between Thane St and Mission Blvd and Major 41 Fremont Upgrade Relinquished Route 84 in Fremont reconstruct 2 railroad bridges to accomodate the widened roadway. arterial 3 43.3 46.2 0.0 0.0

Widen Kato Road to provide a three lane street with bike lanes from City of north of Auburn Street to where frontage improvements are in place Major 42 Fremont Kato Road widening from Warren Ave. to Milmont on both sides of the street west of Milmont Drive. arterial 3 12.3 12.0 0.0 0.2

Construct a new diamond interchange at SR 92 and Whitesell Street which would be extended to the south of the freeway to form a T intersection with Clawiter Road. The project would provide a new on City of Clawiter-Whitesell Interchange (Non-Capacity Increasing ramp from southbound Clawiter Road to SR 92 westbound on a Local 43 Hayward Freeway/Expressway Interchange Modifications) bridge over the SR 92 westbound off ramp to Whitesell Street interchange 2 52.0 0.0 0.0 52.0

Reconstruct Interchange to provide a northbound off ramp and a ACTAC City of southbound HOV bypass lane on the southbound loop off ramp. 44 Hayward I-880 Industrial Parkway Interchange Reconstruct bridge over I-880. Freeway 2 43.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 Widen the westbound to southbound loop off ramp and local street City of contorm and striping improvements on Industrial Boulevard to Local

45 Hayward SR 92 Industrial interchange accommodate the existing lane interchange 2 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Meeting Agenda Reconstruct interchange tio accommodate widening of A Street from 5 lanes to six lanes underneath the overpass. This will require Attachment City of constructing one addiitional freeway lane in each direction. This Local 46 Hayward I-880 West A Street Interchange* would also involve intersection and signal modifications. interchange 2 27.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 83 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 5 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions)

Reconstructing ramps to create a partial cloverleaf interchsnge with signalized foot of ramp intersections. Project would reconfigure City of eastbound to southbound on ramp and a new connection to Local 47 Hayward I-880 Winton Avenue interchange improvements Southland Mall Drive opposite the southbound off ramp intersection. interchange 2 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

Construct a 4-lane arterial connection between the future easterly end of Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin and the westerly end of North Canyons Parkway in the City of Livermore. This project, along with planned improvements within the City of Dublin, would complete the freeway reliever route along the north side of I-580 City of Construct a 4-lane major arterial connecting Dublin Boulevard between I-680 and Route 84 (Isabel Avenue). A 2-lane connection Major 48 Livermore and North Canyons Parkway* could be constructed as an initial phase. Arterial 4 12.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 City of Widen Greenville Road from 2 to 4 lanes between I-580 and Major 49 Livermore Greenville Widening Patterson Pass Rd. Arterial 4 10.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 City of Local 50 Livermore I-580 First St. interchange Reconstruct and modify Interchange. interchange 4 40.0 5.0 0.0 35.0 City of Local 51 Livermore I-580 Greenville interchange Reconstruct and modify Interchange. interchange 4 46.0 9.0 0.0 37.0 Complete ultimate improvements at I-580/Isabel/Route 84 Freeway to City of Interchange to provide 6-lanes over 580 at Isabel/84 Interchange and Freeway 52 Livermore I-580 Isabel Phase II interchange 4-lanes over 580 at Portola flyover. interchange 4 30.0 4.8 0.0 25.2

Modify I-580/Vasco Rd. Interchange. Widen I-580 overcrossing to provide 8 traffic lanes and bike lanes/shoulders. Construct auxiliary lanes on I-580 between Vasco and First Street. Add new loop ramp in southwest quadrant. Includes widening Vasco Road to 8 lanes City of bewteen Northfront Road and Las Positas Road, and other local Local 53 Livermore I-580 Vasco interchange roadway improvements. interchange 4 60.0 8.4 0.0 51.6 City of On Las Positas Road from Arroyo Vista to 1,500' west of Vasco Major 54 Livermore Las Positas Road Connection, Phase 2 Road; Construct 2 lane gap closure. Arterial 4 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 Widen Thornton Avenue from two lanes to four lanes between City of Gateway Boulevard and Hickory Street, a distance of approximately Major 55 Newark Thornton Avenue Widening 5,000 feet. Arterial 3 9.2 8.8 0.0 0.4

The project consists of extending and aligning 42nd Avenue with ACTAC Alameda Avenue to provide a road parallel to High Street; widening High Street to provide additional capacity at the intersections of the freeway connector roads of Oakport Street and Coliseum Way; realigning E. 8th Street near Alameda Avenue; and extending and realigning Jensen and Howard Streets to connect High Street and 42nd Avenue. Includes modified traffic signals and intersection Meeting improvements. On High Street, the limits of construction are Agenda approximately 600 feet (190 meters) to west of I-880 and 500 feet

(150 meters) to the east of I-880. On 42nd/Alameda Avenue, the Attachment limits of construction are approximately 1,000 feet (290 meters) to the west of I-880. Improvements are also proposed for Howard City of Local

Page St./Jensen St. and E. 8th St. as well as the intersections of High St. at 05/03/11

56 Oakland I-880: 42nd/High Street Access Improvements Oakport St. and Coliseum Wy. interchange 1 17.1 11.2 0.0 5.9 Item 4.3 84 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 6 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions)

Infrastructure improvements at the former Army Base include: reconstructing Maritime Street to permit direct access between the marine terminals west of Maritime and the railyard to the east; realigning Burma Road and Wake Avenue to improve circulation and land utilization at the Army Base; a new access road to reduce traffic conflicts between Port-related truck traffic and visitors to the planned regional park at the east touchdown of the San Francisco-Oakland City of Oakland Army Base Transportation Infrastructure Bay Bridge; and replacement of utilities in the public right-of-ways Major 57 Oakland Improvements to enable development of the Army Base. Arterial 1 208.6 114.9 0.0 93.9

The Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminals project will construct new tracks across 7th and Maritime Streets between the Port’s Joint Intermodal Terminal and the Oakland Army Base. The 7th Street Grade Separation & Roadway Improvement Project will grade separate those new railroad tracks from roadway traffic. The 7th and Maritime Street intersection will be reconfigured and the roadway will be elevated above the planned railroad tracks. The project limits are the 7th Street & I-880 interchange, the 7th and Middle Harbor City of Road intersection, and an approximately 1,500-foot section of freight rail, 58 Oakland 7th Street Grade Separation & Roadway Improvement Project Maritime Street north of 7th Street. intercity rail 1 220.5 110.3 0.0 220.5

Vehicles,

Redesign and construct the Harrison-Oakland Avenue couplet as two bikes, City of two-way streets. Incorporate bicycle facilities, bus enhancements, and pedestrians, 59 Oakland Harrison-Oakland Avenue Major Street Improvements pedestrian crossings. bus services 1 12.4 3.3 8.4 0.7

Reconstruct roadway network to address traffic safety concerns, rehabilitate the roadway surfaces to withstand truck traffic and City of Mandela Parkway and 3rd Street Corridor address rail crossings, and provide streetscapes conducive to 60 Oakland Commercial/Industrial Area Street Reconstruction commercial and industrial development Multi 1 157.0 12.0 145.0 0.0

Reconstruct Oakport, Lesser, Tidewater, and High Streets in Oakland west of the I-880 Freeway. Do major reconstruction of streets to serve heavy truck traffic, reconfigure roadway intersection City of configurations, and provide public sidewalks (also bikeway on High,

ACTAC 61 Oakland Tidewater District Street Reconstruction Lesser, and Tidewalter Streets). Multi 1 4.6 1.0 3.6 0.0 Reconstruct goods movement streets within the Woodland-81st City of Avenue industrial area to withstand heavy truck traffic; modify Truck 62 Oakland Woodland - 81st Avenue Industrial Zone street reconstruction gateways, provide at-grade safe RR crossings. Traffic 1 11.5 2.5 9.0 0.0 Meeting Project includes widening of the diagonal NB on ramp, with street widening of Bernal to allow bike lanes and pedestrian improvements Agenda City of for each direction under the existing structure. These widenings will Local 63 Pleasanton I-680 Bernal Interchange improvements include construction of auxiliary lanes to and from the north. interchange 4 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Attachment Extends El Charro Road as a 4 lane divided roadway with landscaped median, six foot bike lanes and pedestrian pathway. The extension is

Page City of Major from El Charro Road's current terminus of Stoneridge Drive 05/03/11 64 Pleasanton El Charro Road Construction southerly to Stanley Boulevard Arterial 4 49.0 49.0 0.0 0.0 Item 4.3 85 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 7 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions) I-580/San Ramon Road/Foothill Road interchange improvements. Elimination of eastbound diagonal off ramp and eastbound loop off City of ramp. Construction of new signalized intersection for off ramp Local 65 Pleasanton I-580 /Foothill/San Ramon Interchange improvements vehicles interchange 4 3.6 1.1 0.0 2.5 This project will reconstruct the southbound approach of Santa Rita at Pimlico/ I-580 eastbound off ramp to add a second southbound left City of turn lane. This reconstruction will include alteration to the Local 66 Pleasanton I-580 Santa Rita Interchange improvements southbound loop ramp. interchange 4 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 City of Construction of an additional westbound lane on the Stoneridge Major 67 Pleasanton I-680 Stoneridge Drive overcrossing widening Drive at I-680 overcrossing. Arterial 4 4.8 4.0 0.0 4.8 City of I-680 Sunol Boulevard Interchange (Non-Capacity Increasing Signalization and ramp improvements at the Sunol Boulevard at I- 68 Pleasanton Freeway/Expressway Interchange Modifications) 680 Interchange 4 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 Extend Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton from its current eastern terminus at Trevor Parkway to El Charro Road. Construct six traffic City of signals as park of the project to allow safer local access to the Major 69 Pleasanton Stoneridge Drive Extension roadway. Arterial 4 16.2 0.0 0.0 16.2 This project adds an additional left turn lane on northbound Hesperian Blvd to northbound East 14th Street, an additional left turn lane on southbound East 14th Street to eastbound 150th Street City of San East 14th Street/Hesperian Boulevard/150th Street and a bus loading lane on southbound East 14th Street between Major 70 Leandro channelization improvements Hesperian Blvd and 150th Street. Arterial 2 6.6 0.0 0.0 6.6

Replaces the existing overcrossing structure with a new structure, providing higher clearance for I-880 traffic and additional travel lanes City of San on Davis St. to improve capacity and safety along with ramp, Local 71 Leandro I-880 Davis Street Interchange intersection and signal improvements interchange 2 10.2 0.0 0.0 10.2 Improvements to the I-880/Marina Blvd Interchange including on/off City of San ramp improvements, overcrossing modification and street Local 72 Leandro I-880 Marina Boulevard Interchange improvements interchange 2 31.8 0.0 0.0 31.8

Construct Eden Road, Marina Blvd widening from Teagarden to Alvarado, Polvorosa Ave extension, and new rail crossing at east end City of San of Aladdin Ave and its intersection with Washington Ave, Lewelling- Arterial and 73 Leandro San Leandro Street Circulation and Capacity Improvements Washington Intersection improvements Collector 2 11.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 Full interchange improvements at Whipple Road/I-880, including City of Union northbound off-ramp, surface street improvements and realignment Local 74 City I-880 / Whipple Road Interchange Improvement (Union City and Hayward city limits) interchange 3 60.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 In conjuntion with the grade separation over Decoto Road (RTPID

ACTAC City of Union #230101) continued grade separations of both rail lines through the 75 City Grade Separation in the Decoto neighborhood residential neighborhood of Decoto. Collector 3 130.0 130.0 0.0 0.0

Passenger rail improvements from Industrial Parkway in Hayward to the Shinn Yards in Fremont. Includes rail connections, grade separate Commuter City of Union Union City Passenger Rail Station & Dumbarton Rail Segment the UPRR Oakland Subdivision over Decoto Road (a major arterial rail/Urban Meeting

76 City G Improvement roadway), and a passenger rail station at Union City BART. heavy rail 3 180.0 51.5 0.0 128.5 Agenda Widen Union City Boulevard/Hesparian from two lanes to three

City of Union Union City Boulevard (widen to 3 lanes from Whipple Road in lanes from Whipple Road in Union City to Industrial Parkway in Major Attachment 77 City Union City to Industrial Parkway in Hayward) Hayward Arterial 3 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 86 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 8 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions) Widen and enhance Whipple Road from I-880 in Hayward to Mission Boulevard in Union City. Improvements include bicycle and pedestrian improvements; roadway widening to accommodate two lanes of traffic in both directions, replace the existing 2-lane bridge City of Union Whipple Road from I-880 to Mission Boulevard Widening and over BART; provide additional capacity from Central Avenue to Major 78 City Enhancement Mission Boulevard. Arterial 3 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Fulfills Phase 1 of this project, the essential first step of making the Union City BART Station a two-sided station accessible to a 30-acre TOD site (former PG&E site). It constructs pedestrian grade separations under the BART and UPRR tracks and reconfigures the existing BART Station to provide a new multi-modal Loop Road, a Bus Transit Facility providing 16-bus bay capacity with transit amenities, a Decoto Connector Road, and reconfigures BART surface City of Union parking lots and replacement BART parking on the Agency owned 79 City Union City Intermodal, Phase 1 TOD site. Intermodal 3 33.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Acquisition of the Oakland Subdivision from Niles Junction to Fruitvale to facilitate passenger rail connection to the Intermodal Station in Union City and improve pedestrian, bicycle, bus and vehicular circulation; and preservation of right-of-way for the East Commuter City of Union Oakland Subdivision acquisition (Fremont to Oakland) rail Bay Greenway from Hayward BART to Fruitvale BART to facilitate rail/Urban 80 City ROW preservation* a pedestrian and bicycle spine in the urban core. heavy rail Multi 135.0 100.0 0.0 35.0

Continue to expand and reconfigure the BART Station to establish the free pedestrian pass-through that will interface with the new Other passenger commuter rail station to serve Dumbarton Rail, Captol Corridor and ACE, and connect to the adjacent TOD. Improvements intermodal City of Union Union City Intermodal Station infrastructure improvements include relocation and replacement of elevators and fair gates, new improvement 81 City (Phase 2) agend booth, bike and pedestrian accessways. s 3 25.5 6.3 0.0 19.2

The Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal (OHIT), a proposed intermodal rail facility and surrounding trade and logistics park, is planned to be located on the former Oakland Army Base. The proposed OHIT project will provide an expanded intermodal terminal for the Port, warehouses, a truck parking lot, and other improvements in and around the former Oakland Army Base. The project is bounded by 7th Street to the south, Maritime Street to the

Port of west, the EBMUD wastewater treament plant to the north, and Union ACTAC 82 Oakland Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal (OHIT) Pacific right of way to the east. Freight rail 1 216.7 46.3 0.0 170.4

Replace the existing concrete wharf at berths 60-63, and deepen the adjacent vessel berthing area to -50 feet. The work will include

embankment stabilization as well. The project is located at berths 60- Meeting 63, which is part of the Global Gateway Central terminal operated by Agenda Port of Eagle Marine Services. The terminal is located at 1579 Middle 83 Oakland Wharf Replacement and Berth Deepening at berths 60-63 Harbor Road, Oakland, CA 94607 Water 1 170.0 170.0 0.0 0.0 Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 87 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 9 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions)

The Martinez Subdivision (Martinez) consists of the UP Right-of- Way (ROW) from the Port of Oakland (Port) to the Suisun Bay railroad bridge spanning the Carquinez Strait (Railroad mile post (mp) 2.75 through mp 31.0). The proposed project includes the addition of two additional mainline tracks from the Port of Oakland (milepost 2.75), to Stege in Richmond (milepost 9.35). The additional two mainline tracks will add the capacity to the system to Port of allow the additional 22 freight trains per day anticipated by 2020. Oakland/MT The project will also construct numerous crossovers and additional Freight/passe 84 C Martinez Subdivision signaling, as well as retaining walls to support the additional track. nger rail 1 $100.0 0 100 0 SUB TOTAL $7,622.1 $1,445.3 $3,962.9 $2,210.0 REGIONAL AND MULTI-JURISDICTION PROJECTS

AM Peak contra flow lanes on Eastbound Lanes of San Francisco- Contra Flow Lanes on Westbound Lanes of San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge - HOT and bus only. See #230605 for the 85 AC Transit Oakland Bay Bridge complementary Grand/Maritime HOV/Bus On-ramp component. Express Bus 1 610.5 5 605.4

This project is proposed to acquire the Right-of-Way, PS&E, and EIR/EIS clearance for ACE Service between Stockton and Niles Junction and complete track improvements on the ACE operational Commuter Right-of Way Preservation and track improvements in Alameda corridor. Project will also expand Alameda County Station Platfroms rail/Urban 86 ACE County to accommodate six car trains-sets. heavy rail 4 600.0 75.0 0.0 75.0 Commuter Platform Extension at Alameda and San Joaquin Co. ACE Extend platforms at Alameda and San Joaquin County ACE Stations rail/Urban 87 ACE Stations to accomodate longer train sets. heavy rail 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0

The project will identify and acquire the ultimate Right of Way (ROW) along the I-580 corridor from Hacienda Drive to Vasco Road 88 ACTC I-580 Corridor ROW Preservation Interchange to accommodate a transit corridor in the median of I-580. Transit 4 $120.7 00120.7 Phase I of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project involves the implementation of two separate project elements which are criticial to the long term objective of the provision of a regional Transbay rail service: 1. The implementation of an enhanced Transbay express bus service to provide a high level of service and improved performance.It

consists of: ACTAC i. Peak period – bi directional service – 30 minute service frequency between Union City and Redwood City with enhanced station stops and transit priority treatments to expedite service. ii. Peak period – bi-directional service – 15 minute service frequency - Union City to Stanford Research Park – with transit priority treatments. Meeting iii. Peak period – bi-directional service – 15 minute service Agenda frequency - Fremont to Stanford University - Park – with transit 89 ACTC/SamTraDumbarton Rail Corridor Phase I* priority Express Bus 3 108.5 63 0 45.5 Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 88 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 10 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions) frequency service between Union City-San Francisco and 60 minute frequency service between Union City- San Jose. Westbound during the AM peak and eastbound during the PM peak (six hours of total service). 2. Rail Shuttle (Union City – Redwood City) – Bi-directional peak period – 15 minute frequency service between Union City – Redwood City. A new exclusive DRC connection would be provided to the Redwood City Station and a new platform would be constructed. C. Combined Original Project + Rail Shuttle – A combination of alternatives b and c – this alternative would consist of two components: i. Peak period- peak direction only – 60 minute frequency service between Union City-San Francisco and 60 minute frequency service between Union City- San Jose. Westbound during the AM peak and Commuter eastbound during the PM peak (six hours of total service. rail/Urban 90 ACTC/SamTraDumbarton Rail Corridor Phase II* ii. Bi-directional peak period – 30 minute frequency service between heavy rail 3 770.1 511.2 258.9

Provides a rail extension from the existing station at Dublin/Pleasanton easterly to downtown Livermore and Vasco Road. Selected alignment alternative is in the I-580 median from Dublin/Pleasanton to approximately Isabel Avenue, then in a subway configuration through downtown Livermore, then in an at-grade configuration to Vasco Road. Project includes and yard and shop, and Commuter 91 BART BART to Livermore Extension* vehicle procurement. Rail 4 4177 4033

This project is the first phase of a multi-phase extension of BART transit service eastward from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton station, through downtown Livermore to a terminus at Vasco Road in TBD - Livermore. Phase 1 project may consist of a partial BART extension potentially in combination with other modes. Additional and/or interim station sites as well as near-term service using other transit modes may be urban rail used to enable project phasing. Project will include yard and shop and express 92 BART BART to Livermore extension Phase 1* facilities as part of Phase 1 or later phases. bus 4 $143.0 00143

This project will modify the BART Bay Fair Station and approaches

to construct a third station track and a second passenger platform, and ACTAC associated crossovers, switches and other trackage, both north and south of the station. In addition to adding the platform and trackage, Commuter modifications will be needed to the train rail/Urban 93 BART BayFair Connection (Capacity Improvements "Wye" project) control system, some BART maintenance trackage, and other systems heavy rail Multi $150.0 0 150 0 Meeting Establishes a 3.2 mile long Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) system running on an exclusive right-of-way along the Hegenberger Automatic Agenda Road corridor between the Coliseum BART and the planned People 94 BART BART-Oakland International Airport Connector Coliseum Amtrak Stations and the Oakland International Airport. Mover 1 $484.1 105.7 0 378.4 Attachment Extends BART to Warm Springs. The one-station, 5.4-mile extension begins at the Fremont Station and extend to Warm Springs

Page Commuter in southern Fremont. The proposed Warm Springs Station, just south 05/03/11 BART/City of of Grimmer Boulevard, would have approximately 2,300 parking rail/Urban Item 95 Fremont BART Warm Springs extension spaces. heavy rail 3 $890.0 00890 4.3 89 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 11 of 12 Cost Funding Funding Other Fund Estimate Request Request Sources Project Planning ($ in (Discretionary) (vision) ($ in identified ($ # Sponsor Project Name Project Description Mode Area millions) ($ in millions) millions) in millions) City of Fremont/ 96 BART Irvington BART Station* Construct a new BART station in Irvington Area PDA in Fremont Intercity rail 3 123.0 0.0 0.0 123.0 Construct I-580 eastbound truck climbing lane from Greenville Road Undercrossing to one mile east of North Flynn Road (Altamont 97 Caltrans I-580 Eastbound Truck Climbing Lane Summit). Freeway 4 $64.2 0064.2

SUB TOTAL $8,246.1 $764.9 $4,788.4 $2,098.7

ACTAC Meeting Agenda Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 4.3 90 C Note - * indicates project identified in Outreach Page 12 of 12 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3 Attachment D

TABLE 4 - Public Outreach Project Listings for which sponsors have not been identified and 2008 CWTP projects dropped Public Outreach Projects for which Sponsors have not been Identified

# Project Name Planning Area 1 SR-84 / I-680 HOV Direct Connectors 4 2 Altamont Rail Corridor Safety and Speed Improvements 3,4 3 Cross-platform transfer BART/ACE at Livermore Station 4 4 Double track UP/ACE rail line Tracy to Livermore 4 5 Extend BART to ACE/Livermore and I-580 Greenville Station 4

6 I-80 San Pablo Ave. (SR 123): Extend SMART Corridor throughout entire study area 1

7 I-580 Add 4th Lane WB from Mission/East 14th off to I-880 SB off 2

8 I-580 Extend single HOV/HOT lanes EB btw Greenville and I-205/Mountain House 4

9 I-580 Extend single HOV/HOT lanes EB btw Redwood Rd. and Hacienda 2,4

10 I-580 Extend single HOV/HOT lanes WB btw I-205/Mountain House and Greenville 4

11 I-580 Extend single HOV/HOT lanes WB btw I-680 and Redwood Rd. 2,4

12 I-580 Improve I-580 HOT operations EB btw First Street and Vasco Road 4

13 I-580 Improve I-580 HOT operations WB btw Santa Rita and I-680 4

14 I-580 First Street Interchange - reconstruct 4

15 I-580 Greenville Rd. Interchange reconstruct 4

16 I-580 Hacienda Drive Interchange reconstruct 4 I-580 Spot intersection capacity improvements (East Lewelling & Hesperian / Castro Valley Blvd. & Foothill Blvd. / Foothill Blvd. & Grove Way / Castro Valley Blvd. & Stanton Ave. / Redwood Rd. & I-580 WB off / Castro Valley Blvd. & Grove Way/Crow Canyon Rd. / Hopyard Rd. & Owens Drive / Airway 17 Blvd. & North Canyon Parkway) 2, 4

18 I-80 Construct EB aux lane from Ashby Ave. on-ramp to University Ave. off-ramp 1

19 I-80 Powell St.: Allow WB left turn and SB through for the WB off-ramp 1 20 I-80 Powell St.: widen eastbound off-ramp 1 21 I-80 WB Gilman Ave. off-ramp: add 3rd lane 1

22 SR 24 : EB HOV lane from the Broadway Ave. on-ramp to the Caldecott Tunnel 1

23 SR-84/Sunol Corners Intersection Operational Improvements (County-sponsored PID priority) 4

24 I-880 Hesperian interchange improvements Additional BART parking Capacity at upstream (SR24?) stations. Increase bus transit access to the BART 25 Stations within the SR 24 corridor and BART system-wide operational improvements. 1

26 Union City - Capitol Corridor stop (Intermodal station.) 3 27 BART Transbay Tube (Second) 1

28 Ardenwood widening near Paseo Padre 3

29 Decoto Rd (congestion relief, safety) 3

30 Fremont @ Peralta grade separation 3

31 Grade Separation of rail crossings at major roadways Multi

32 High Speed Rail/Altamont Corridor Rail 4

33 I-680 / Mission Blvd South interchange 3

34 I-680 Automall (congestion relief/safety) 3

35 I-680 NB HOT lanes 3, 4

1 of 3 Page 91 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3 Attachment D

# Project Name Planning Area

36 I-80 improvements for freeway efficiency 1

37 I-880 / Dumbarton (SR 84) interchange (congestion relief/safety) 3

38 I-680 / I-880 connector/flyover 3

39 I-880 HOT lanes Multi

40 I-880 Industrial NB off-ramp 2

41 Intergrated Corridor Mobility Multi

42 Short Haul Rail improvements to reduce truck volumes on freeways Multi 43 SR 84 connector btw I-580 and I-680 (potential toll corridor) 3 44 Thornton Ave, Peralta (congestion relief, safety) 3 45 Truck bypass in Central County to facilitate goods movement 2 46 Whipple Rd widening/improvements btw I-880 and Central 2 47 EBRPD Tassajara Creek trail 4 48 Extend BART to ring the bay Multi 49 I-238 : Add 4th lane on I-238/Altamont for trucks Multi

50 I-238 to go south & traffic to go SSB to I-880 (?) 2

51 I-580 Fallon interchange improvements 4

52 I-580 Hacienda interchange improvemets 4

53 I-880 NB from Whipple in Union City – congestion management in corridor 3

54 Additional direct roads for through traffic to connect SJ Valley to Silicon Valley 3,4

55 Capacity Improvments for Goods Movements and Rail multi

56 Cheaper BART Alternative Multi

57 Increased Regional Rail Service Multi

58 Improvements at Davis St (San Leandro) 2

59 Downtown San Leandro Bypass 2

60 I-880 auxiliary lane from Whipple Road to Industrial Parkway 2

61 I-880 auxiliary lane West A to Winton 2

62 I-880 Industrial interchange improvements 2

63 Planning dollars to remove I-980 1

64 SR 238 Corridor Improvements between Foothill Boulevard/I-580 and Industrial PROJECTS FROM 2008 CWTP IDENTIFED TO BE DROPPED 1 I-880/Oak Street On Ramp Re-construction

2 I-580 auxiliary lanes btw Santa Rita/Tassajara Rd and Airway Blvd 4 3 I-580 WB auxiliary lane from First to Isabel 4

4 I-580 on- and off-ramp improvements in Castro Valley

5 Construct street extension in Hayward near Clawiter and Whitesell Streets 6 New West Dublin Station 4 7 I-80 : SFOBB HOV Bypass at left side of toll plaza 1

8 SR 84 WB HOV lane extension fron Newark to I-880 3 I-880 / SR 262 reconstruct interchange and widen I-880 from SR 262 (Mission Blvd.) to the Santa Clara 9 county line from 8 lanes to 10 lanes (8 mixed fow and 2 HOV lanes) 3 I-238 widening between I-580 and I-880 from 4 lanes to 5 lanes, auxiliary lanes on I-880 between I-238 10 and "A" St 2

2 of 3 Page 92 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3 Attachment D

# Project Name Planning Area

11 Ed Roberts Campus at Ashby BART Station

12 Capitol Corridor & ACE 3 13 Washington/Paseo Padre Parkway Grade Separation 3 14 I-880 Industrial parkway Interchange Phase 2 2 15 I-580 Isabel interchange improvements, Phase 1 4 16 Washington Avenue/Beatrice Street Interchange Improvements 17 Springtown to Livermore Rapid 4

18 Stanley/Murdell Park and Ride 4 19 North Airport Air Cargo Access Road Improvements, Phase 1 20 Truck Parking Facilities in North Alameda County 1 21 Downtown Shuttle/Weekend Winery Shuttle for LAVTA 4 22 Paratransit Expansion Buses - LAVTA 4 23 West Jack London Boulevard Extension 4 24 Livermore-Dublin Bus Rapid Transit 4

3 of 3 Page 93 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3 Attachment D

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 94 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Implementation of Countywide and Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan projects and program 1 Bike and pedestrian access to transit 2 Bike and pedestrian connections/connectivity 3 Grade separations/gap closures of rail and freeways for bike/pedestrian 4 Safety improvements, including lighted crosswalks, bicycle detection (signals) 5 East County - implement bike connections between Dublin, Pleasanton and Livemore 6 Wayfinding signage for bikes and pedestrians 7 Share the Road safety/education campaign 8 Maintenance for bike/pedestrian infrastructure 9 Promotion of biking and walking 10 Bikesharing program 11 Bike parking 12 Bikes on transit Location specific suggestions for bike and pedestrian improvements 13 in Berkeley I-80 Gilman undercrossing gap closure 14 in Castro Valley Castro Valley Blvd. - bike lanes

15 in Dublin Alamo Canal Trail under I-580 16 in Fremont Downtown Pedestrian Streetscape (Capitol Ave, New Middle Rd 17 in Fremont Fremont Blvd. Streetscape -bike/ped improvements Centerville PDA 18 in Fremont Bike access improvements Fremont Blvd and I-680 @ Automall 19 in Fremont Fremont, connect to Santa Clara - bike lanes 20 in Fremont Improvements along Fremont Blvd. and 680

21 in Fremont SR 262 (Mission Blvd. ) Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Improvements 22 in Hayward Industrial Blvd. in Hayward - bike lanes 23 in Hayward Sidewalk/bike path gap closure to Cal State Hayward 24 in Hayward SR-92 /Hesperian - Bike Connection 25 in Hayward W. Winton/Southland corridor for bikes and cars - congestion relief 26 in Livermore Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements on Stanley Blvd 27 in Oakland Alcatraz/Colby - Ped Safety

28 in Oakland? Addition of Bike Lanes and Congestion Relief in Highland and Magnolia Ave. areas 29 in Pleasanton Pedestrian Bridge over Arroyo Mocho for access to Hart Middle School 30 in Pleasanton Arroyo Mocho Trail Paving along Zone 7 channel E/W mobility improvements (including pedestrian amenities) in San Leandro, especially along 31 in San Leandro San Leandro Blvd/David and Nelson 32 in San Leandro San Leandro Bike/Ped plan - implementation 33 in San Leandro San Leandro Blvd Bike Improvements 34 in San Leandro San Leandro Blvd. Bike/Ped improvements

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 195 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program

in uninc. Alameda 35 County San Lorenzo Creek Trail

in uninc. Alameda 36 County Sidewalk improvements (Stanton Ave, Somerset Ave, etc.) 37 in Union City Union City Blvd bikes lanes 38 Bike lane to San Francisco 39 San Pablo Ave. - bike lanes 40 Alameda Creek Trail improvements 41 I-880 Bike/ped overcrossings in south county 42 Niles Canyon - bike lanes 43 Sidewalk improvements citywide 44 EBRPD Tassajara Creek trail 45 Bike/Ped path along I-580 to Livermore 46 Pleasanton to Dublin bicycle connection 47 Stoneridge Drive to Livermore Trail 48 Mission Blvd Improvements 49 Crow Canyon between Castro Valley and San Ramon - bike lanes 50 UP line – leverage for greenway - bike ped 2. Transit Enhancements, Expansion and Safety Stations and Stops improvements 51 Safety - i.e. lighting 52 Increase parking at stations 53 Amenities - i.e. benches, shelters, wifi, cupholders 54 Maintenance - cleanliness 55 Access to - for able-bodied, and wheelchair users 56 Restroom facilities 57 Infrastructure - i.e. escalators 58 Audible announcements Other 59 Real-time information for passengers 60 Safety on board transit vehicles Location/Agency-specific suggestions for transit improvements 61 for BART Increase bus transit access to the BART Stations within the SR 24 corridor Alameda County Station Modernization (renovation/replacement of vertical circulation, fare 62 for BART collection, station site/architecture, etc.) 63 for BART Alameda County Station Reliability (train control and traction power) 64 in Albany Infill Station: Solano Ave 65 in Oakland Infill Station: 98th Ave 66 in Oakland Infill Station: San Antonio

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 296 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program 3. Transit and Paratransit Operations and Education 3A. Transit and Paratransit Operations and Expansion (Including TPM and TSM) 67 Paratransit operations (ADA- mandated) 68 Paratransit transportation (non-mandated, i.e. city-based) 69 Transit service expansion 70 Restoration of AC Transit service to previous (pre-cut) levels 71 Shuttles to supplement transit service 72 Continued/increased funding of transit service (operations) 73 Continued/increased funding of paratransit (mandated and non-mandated) 74 Accesible transportation expansion 75 Ferry expansion 76 Express Bus service expansion 77 Coordination between Paratransit transportation services/providers 78 Transit transfer connectivity 79 Increase transit service frequency 80 Increase transit service time of day coverage (i.e. earlier and later hours) 81 Improve bus connections to BART 82 Transit service reliability 3A. Location/Agency- specific suggestions 83 for AC Transit Increase length of transfer (validity?) time for AC Transit

84 for AC Transit 72R stop in front of St. Mary's Center going downtown

85 for AC Transit AC Transit bus #31 should continue service during the week as well as on the weekends.

86 for BART New bus to BART (W/Dublin)

87 for BART 24 hr service 88 for BART Eliminate time of day restrictions for Bikes on BART 89 in Alameda Improved connection between Alameda and Fruitvale BART Improved Bus Service on Fremont Blvd. from Union City BART Station via Decoto Road and Fremont Blvd. to Centerville, Fremont BART, Irvington BART and Warm Springs BART 90 in Fremont Stations 91 in Oakland Transit: Streetcar on Broadway Better weekend AC Transit coverage in Oakland to and from Montclair/Broadway 92 in Oakland Terrace/Broadway/College Ave 93 in Oakland Eastmont Mall connection to Walmart and BART 94 in San Leandro San Leandro Arterials/AC transit 95 in Union City Capital Corridor at Union City

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 397 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program 85 Restore AC Transit services to pre-2010 levels, especially for East Oakland 86 Transit connection to Alameda 87 Increase bus service frequency in South County (1/2 hr) 88 Continued funding of transit in the Tri-Valley 86 Expanded ACE service (connect to BART in Fremont and Livermore) 87 Express Bus Routes (I-580) 88 Increase service on the 880

89 Transit connections to Vallejo and Tracy 90 Electric trolley buses 91 Flexible transportation system for an aging/changing population 92 Group trips - Accessible Transportation

93 Improve wheelchair accessibility for BART and bus 94 Paratransit - tie funding to efficiency 95 Paratransit with GPS that locates person – locator software on cell phone. 96 Regional rail - increase 97 Smaller buses during non-commute hours and less traveled routes 98 Transit - Improving the safety and frequency of “last mile” transit connections 99 Transit - More customized transit service for each area – tailored to user needs 3B. Transit Fare Incentives 100 Explore the Potential for Implementing Residential Eco Pass Programs 101 Coordinated transit pass across all transit providers. 102 Transit riding incentives - Increase 3C. Travel Training, Education and Promotion Programs 103 Seniors Transportation (education/access) 104 Education on how to use transit 105 Transit marketing/outreach 106 Bus driver training - customer service skills 107 Bus driver training (wheelchair securing) 4. Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Implementation Implementation of CBTPs These overlap with other programs, i.e. transit, bike/pedestrian, TDM, local streets 108 Bus stop improvements - shelters, benches, lighting 109 Transit service - frequency, evening coverage, geographic range 110 Transit information - 511, real-time, at bus-stops 111 Shuttles 112 Pedestrian improvements - sidewalks, crossings, lighting 113 Bikeway facilities - bike lanes, trails 114 Subsidy programs - transit fare, bike purchase, auto loan, car-share

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 498 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program 115 Streetscape improvements 116 Traffic calming 117 Signal timing 118 Parking (cars and bikes) 119 Safety - multimodal 120 Access/connection - multimodal 121 Education/awareness - multimodal 5. Local Road Improvements 5B. Safety Improvements - general and specific suggestions 122 Rural roads 123 Rail crossings 124 Bike/pedestrian crossings for roads 125 Grade separations - rail and roads 126 Quiet zones near heavy and commuter rail (UP, ACE, BART) 127 Rail Safety (new program or local street safety) 128 in Fremont Fremont @ Peralta (grade separation) 129 in Fremont SR 84 - Niles Canyon Rd (safety improvements) 130 in Oakland Potholes at Telegraph/55th 131 in Oakland? 40th street/Macarthur Road diet 132 Decoto Rd (congestion relief, safety) 133 I-80 grade separations 134 I-880 grade separations

135 E. 14th corridor - Enhance safety 5C. Streetscape improvements 136 in Oakland? 12th Street Improvements 137 in San Leandro Downtown San Leandro bypass. 5D. Coordination with Freeways - general and specific suggestions 138 Better coordination between freeway and local streets in Alameda 139 County I-580 Fairmont Blvd Ramps in Alameda 140 County I-238 E. 14th/Mission Blvd Exit Ramps 5E. Complete Streets - general and specific suggestions 141 Complete Streets - implementation E/W mobility improvements (including pedestrian amenities) on San Leandro streets, especially 142 in San Leandro along San Leandro Blvd/David and Nelson

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 599 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program 5F. Traffic calming 143 Speed reduction (road) 144 Traffic calming near schools 5G. ITS/Signals 145 in Emeryville? 3-way signal on San Pablo and Park Ave. 146 ITS 147 Signal synchronization 148 Signal interconnect 149 Signal timing for transit signal priority 150 Traffic Signal System Upgrade 151 Better signal timing/synchronization, especially at night and mid-day - roads 152 Intelligent/Adaptive intersections. 5H Signage 153 in San Leandro Wayfinding signage to destinations (San Leandro Marina) and transit - program 6. Local Streets & Roads Operations & Maintenance (O&M) 6A. Pavement Rehab 154 Pavement rehabilitation - potholes, etc 155 in Berkeley Repave Marin between Albany and Marin Circle 6B. Maintenance / Operations - general and specific suggestions 156 Local street maintenance - funding for 157 Arterials and local circulation - improve 158 Maintenance of local streets and roads. 159 in Dublin Local Streets and Roads Maintenance Program 160 in Fremont Local Street and Road Maintenance and minor improvement funding 161 in Fremont? Decoto Road 162 in Livermore Traffic Signal Op 163 in Newark Maintenance Programs (25) 164 in Newark? Local streets: Thornton Ave and Peralta

165 in Oakland Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation: Paving, Emergency Repair 166 in Oakland? Perkins Street 167 in Oakland? Upper Park (Leimert-Mountain) 168 in San Leandro Traffic Signal System Upgrade 6C. ITS 169 ITS O&M 7. Highway, Freeway, Safety and Non-Capacity Improvements 7A Interchange improvements 170 in Fremont I-680 /Auto mall 171 in Newark I-880 / Dumbarton (SR 84) interchange (congestion relief/safety) 172 in Oakland I-580 Harrison (Oakland) Improvements

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 100 6 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program 173 in Oakland? I-80 Re-stripe WB 80 to SB 880 connector from 3 to 4 lanes 7B Operations incl. ramp metering 174 I-80 south interchange signage 175 I-880 Operations Improvements 176 Ramp metering - improve 7C Maintenance 177 Maintenance of regional highways 178 in Fremont I-680 pavement resurfacing south of Mission 7D Soundwalls 179 Soundwalls 7E Freeway Service Patrol 180 Freeway Service Patrol for MTC/ regional Each tow truck should have a wheelchair lift on it – include in expanded “Freeway Service 181 FSP Patrol” - accessible transportation 7F ITS 182 Intergrated Corridor Mobility 183 I-80 improvements for greater freeway efficiency 8. Bridge Improvements 9. Transportation and Land Use Program (PDA/TOD Program) 184 Supporting existing compact development and infrastructure - sustainability 185 TOD / PDA - implementation program 10. Planning and Outreach 10A Planning studies and implementation 186 Regional gas tax - development of 187 Equitable distribution of transit funding $$ 188 Transit agency mergers for efficiency 10B Promotion/outreach and education about transit, bike, walk, multimodal access 189 Public awareness about public transit - increase 190 Education on transit use for parents and youth, including disabled youth. 191 Healthy living, walking, bike promotion 192 bus driver/ transit civility education program 10C Multi-lingual educational materials 193 Multi-lingual access/education Produce and distribute existing multilingual BART and AC Transit Information in the Fruitvale 194 in Oakland and San Antonio neighborhoods 10D School promotion 195 Safe Routes to Schools - planning and outreach

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 101 7 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program 11. Transportation Demand Mgmt (TDM) and Parking Mgmt 11A Parking programs 196 Parking programs (demand mgmt, pricing, unbundling) 197 Parking system management - improvements 198 in Berkeley Downtown Berkeley Transit Center Parking Facility 199 in Emeryville Parking program 200 in Livermore Parking structures at Greenville and Isabel. 11B Transit cards 201 Clipper Cards - expand to include payment for taxi service 202 Pre-paid transit supporting TOD/employers 11C School programs 203 Crossing guard program 204 School buses 11D GHG reduction 205 GHG reduction programs 206 GHG reduction projects 11E Transportation Demand Management 207 Incentives for alternatives to driving 208 TDM program 209 Employer- alternative work shifts 11F Pricing programs 210 Pricing - programs to induce behavior change 211 Congestion Pricing 11G Shuttles, streetcars 212 Shuttle service expansion 213 Shuttles for seniors

214 Deviated route shuttles 215 Shuttles developed in coordination w/ private institutions 216 in Fremont City Center/Downtown Bus/Shuttle Circulator 217 in Berkeley Shuttle from Berkeley Hills to Shattuck 218 In in Alameda Shuttle Alameda to Oakland 219 in Oakland Broadway Shuttle

220 in Oakland Create a free Eastmont [shuttle?] 221 in San Leandro? Shuttle should stop at Manor Blvd. and Farnsworth in San Leandro routinely 222 in W. Oakland BART Access Evening Shuttle - W. Oakland 223 in W. Oakland Youth library shuttle-W. Oakland 224 In in Alameda Create an Alameda Point Shopper Shuttle on Weekends 225 Streetcar EBOT

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 102 8 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Table 5 : Program listings from Outreach Activities for the RTP/SCS and CWTP‐TEP Call for Projects Agenda , for which Item 4.3 sponsors have not been identified Attachment F

Location / # System Name of the Program 11H Carsharing 226 Subsidized Car Sharing 227 Auto Loan Program 228 Carsharing 11i Education and Marketing 229 511 (improve user-friendliness) 230 Transit - Better PR/Marketing about the overall system 11J Travel training 231 Travel Training 12. Goods Movement 12A Truck parking 12B Port operations improvements 232 Port operation - manage a queuing system for trucks 233 Port - Demand responsive truck loading and unloading at the Port 234 Port of Oak - change to 24 hr facility 12C Truck impacts to local streets - improvements for 235 in Newark Truck impacts on local streets (41) 236 Address truck impacts on local streets 12D Truck routing 237 Truck congestion relief in neighborhoods 238 Truck routing - improve 239 Truck bypass in Central County to facilitate goods movement 240 Truck Route Enforcement and Education 12E Freight operations improvements (rail, roads, port) 241 Goods movement/ truck technology 242 Short Haul Rail improvements to reduce truck volumes on freeways 243 Expand use of rail to and from Port of Oakland 244 Truck Services at Oakland Army Base (ROW) 245 Diesel Truck Replacement 13. Priority Development Area (PDA) Support - Non-Transportation 246 Infrastructure (utilities, communications) 14. Environmental Mitigation 247 Support urban growth boundaries UP property development at proposed (where- San Leandro?) multi-modal station - addressing 248 the potential impacts 15. Transportation Technology and Revenue Enhancement

These listings will be considered in the CWTP evaluation process, except where noted. These listings do not require individual listing in the RTP/SCS. Table 5 Programs_suggested_for_CWTP_2012_04‐27‐11_cc.xls 4/27/2011 4:57Page PM Page 103 9 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.3 Attachment F

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 104 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.4

Memorandum

DATE: April 26, 2011

TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC)

FROM: Matt Todd, Manager of Programming

RE: Approval of 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): Development Process

Recommendation: ACTAC is requested to recommend Commission 1) approval of the 2012 STIP development process and schedule, and 2) review and comment on draft principles for the development of the 2012 STIP project list. A Call for projects is proposed to be released in mid June 2011 and applications are anticipated to be due to the Alameda CTC in mid July.

Summary: The overall process for the development of the STIP begins with the development of the STIP Fund Estimate. The STIP Fund Estimate serves as the basis for determining the county shares for the STIP and the amounts available for programming each fiscal year during the five-year STIP period. Typically, the county shares represent the amount of new STIP funding made available in the last two years of a given STIP period. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) are scheduled to approve the final assumptions for the 2012 STIP Fund Estimate in May 2011, draft Fund Estimate in June 2011 and a final Fund Estimate in August 2011. Similar to recent STIP programming cycles, little or no new funding is expected to be made available and already programmed STIP funds may be delayed into later years of the STIP period in order for STIP revenue projections to “catch up” with current programming. The region’s STIP proposal (i.e. the RTIP) is due to the CTC in December 2011. Correspondingly, the counties’ proposals are due to MTC in late October 2011. The attached 2012 STIP Development Schedule shows the Alameda CTC Board approving Alameda County’s 2012 STIP Program in October 2011. Staff is also seeking Board approval of principles by which the Alameda County share of the 2012 STIP will be programmed. The principles proposed for the 2012 STIP development include discussion of how to deliver projects addressed in previous ACCMA STIP resolutions (Resolution No. 08-006 Revised and Resolution No. 08-018).

Page 105 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.4

In order to meet the anticipated schedule from MTC for the regional development of the 2012 STIP, the attached Draft 2012 STIP Development Schedule shows the Alameda CTC Board approving the Final STIP proposal in October 2011. To meet this schedule the Alameda CTC is proposing to release of a Call for Projects in mid June with a due date for project applications in mid July 2011. As in past STIP cycles, the CTC and MTC are scheduled to adopt the final STIP policies after the call for projects is complete and applications are due. The development of the Alameda County STIP proposal will have to be closely coordinated with the statewide and regional development of the 2012 STIP policies. The CTC schedule calls for adoption of the 2012 STIP in April 2012. During the 2010 STIP development process, the following policies were considered important and it is anticipated that they will be applied to the development of the 2012 STIP: • The Region’s CMAs notify all eligible project sponsors within the county of the availability of STIP funds; and • Caltrans should notify the region’s CMAs and MTC of any anticipated costs increases to currently-programmed STIP projects in the same time frame as the new project applications.

Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Principles for the Development of the 2012 STIP Project List Attachment B: Draft 2012 STIP Development Schedule Attachment C: CMA Resolution No. 08-006 Revised Attachment D: CMA Resolution No. 08-018

Page 106 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 4 Agenda Item 4.4 Attachment A Attachment A Draft Principles for the Development 2012 STIP Project List • All sponsors will be required to provide updated cost, scope and schedule information for currently programmed projects. • The ACCMA Board made commitments to certain projects in 2008 that are detailed in ACCMA Resolutions 08-006 Revised (Caldecott Tunnel project) and 08-018 (Previous STIP commitment and MTC Reso 3434 projects). Staff suggests the strategy to deliver the aforementioned projects be discusses and confirmed by the Alameda CTC, based on the information available today, as part of the 2012 STIP process. • It is anticipated that any new funding programmed in the 2012 STIP will be made available in FY’s 2015/16 and 2016/17. • Any project submitted for funding must be consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan and be able to meet all STIP requirements. • Projects recommended for STIP programming must demonstrate readiness to meet applicable programming, allocation and delivery deadlines associated with STIP programming. • The following criteria are proposed for prioritization required for the development of the 2012 STIP project list: ♦ In past STIP cycles, highest priority was given to projects that are: 1)currently programmed in the STIP; and 2) projects that have received a commitment of future STIP programming as memorialized in Resolutions 08-006 Revised and 08-018 that meet applicable project readiness standards. Staff recommends the proposed prioritization be based on the results of the Alameda CTC discussion regarding the potential projects that could be considered for STIP funding. ♦ For the remaining projects, strike a balance between funding for construction and project development, considering the following aspects of project delivery: ƒ How far along is project development? – Highest priority to projects that are closest to capital expenditure, i.e. construction or right of way. Status of environmental clearance. ƒ Does the project have a full funding plan? Has funding been identified for future phases? What is the level of certainty of the availability of the project funding? ƒ Can the project be phased? ƒ Are there special considerations or timing constraints such as the need to preserve right of way or matching other funds? ƒ Priority consistent with CMA Board identified priority projects ƒ Equity (geographic, sponsor, modal) ƒ Climate change impact

Attachment A PagePage 1 of 107 1 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.4

Attachment B Attachment B Draft 2012 STIP Development Schedule

Alameda CTC Activity Date MTC/CTC Activity

• Approve 2012 STIP Schedule • CTC Approve Final Fund May 2011 • Review Draft Principles. Estimate Assumptions

• Release Call for Projects th • CTC Releases Draft Fund (June 15 ) Estimate • Alameda CTC Approve 2012 nd June 2011 (June 22 ) STIP Principles • CTC Releases Draft STIP • Project Applications due to Guidelines Alameda CTC by end of month 1

• Applications due to Alameda CTC • MTC Reviews Draft RTIP July 2011 (July 13th) Policies

• CTC Approves Fund Estimate August 2011 • CTC Adopts STIP Guidelines

• Draft RTIP Proposal to Alameda • MTC Approves Final RTIP September 2011 CTC Committees and Board Policies

• Final RTIP Proposal to Alameda CTC Committees and Board October 2011

November 2011 • MTC Approves RTIP

December 2011 • RTIP due to CTC

April 2012 • CTC Adopts 2012 STIP

1. Sponsors of existing STIP programming in future years of the STIP as well as Caltrans sponsored projects with open Expenditure Authorization authority (or with a close out pending) will also be required to submit a project application for funding consideration.

Page 108 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 A lAMEDA C OUNTY Agenda Item 4.4 C ONGESTION M ANAGEMENT A GENCY Attachment C

1333 BROADWAY, SUITE220 . OAKLAND, CA 94612 . PHON E: (510) 836-2560 · FAX: (510) 836-2185 E-MAIL: [email protected] ·WEBSITE:a ccma. ca.gov

ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY

AC Transit RESOLUTION 08-006 REVISED Director Greg Harper STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) Alameda County Supervisors COMMITMENT TO ROUTE 24 CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENTS NateMley Scott Haggerty Chair WHEREAS, SB 45 (Chapter 622, Statutes 1997) substantially revised the process for City of Alameda estimating the amount of state and federal funds available for transportation projects in Mayor BeverlyJohnson the state and for appropriating and allocating the available funds to these projects; and

City of Albany Councilmember FaridJavandel WHEREAS, as part of this process, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) is responsible for programming projects eligible for Regional BART Director Improvement Program funds, pursuant to Government Code Section 14527(a), for Thomas Blalock inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and submission to the City of Berkeley Councilmember Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and then to the California KrissWorthington Transportation Commission (CTC) , for inclusion in the State Transportation City of Dublin Improvement Program (STIP); and Mayor Janet Lockhan

City of Emeryvill e WHEREAS, the ACCMA has included $8 million in its 25-year Countywide Vice·Mayor RuthAtkin Transportation Plan for enhancements along and in the vicinity of the Route 24 Corridor in Oakland associated with the Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore project; and City of Fremont Vice· Mayor Robert Wieckows1t..i WHEREAS, the ACCMA included the first $2 million for the Route 24 Corridor in its City of Hayward Mayor submittal for the 2008 STIP that was approved by the CTC on June 26, 2008; and Michael Sweeney

City of Livermore WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) has agreed to Mayor Marshall Kamena exchange the $2 million in 2008 STIP funding with its local sales tax funding in order

City of Newark to expedite delivery ofthe enhancements; and Counci!member Luis Freitas WHEREAS, the CCTA has agreed to exchange another $2 million to be included in City of Oakl and Councilmember 2010 Alameda County STIP submittal with its local sales tax funding in order to further l.arry Reid expedite delivery ofthe enhancements; and City of Piedmont Councilmember John Chiang WHEREAS, the Route 24 Corridor enhancements have been proposed by the ACCMA City of Pleasanton for the MTC 's update of its regional transportation plan, expected to be completed in Mayor Jennifer Hosterman 2009 ; and

City of San Leandro Councilmember WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has identified a tentative package ofenhancements to Joyce R. Starosciak be funded with the above-referenced $8 million in ACCMA's 25-year Countywide City of Union City Mayor Transportation Plan; and Mark Green Vice Chair WHEREAS, the City of Oakland and Caltrans are finalizing a settlement agreement th Executive Director regarding the environmental document for the Caldecott Tunnel 4 Bore project; and Dennis R.Fay

Page 109 Alam eda County Congestion Management Agency ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Resolution 08-006 Revised Agenda Item 4.4 Page 2 Attachment C WHEREAS, the ACCMA Board , at the regular ACCMA Board meeting on April 24, 2008, adopted Resolution 08-006 setting forth a commitment on the part of the ACCMA Board to program up to $6 million in the 2010 and 2012 STIPs to effectuate certain provisions of the above-referenced settlement agreement, subject to certain conditions; and

WHEREAS, to account for the CCTA commitments described above, the ACCMA Board has considered and has determined to adopt this Resolution 08-006 Revised, which amends and restates in its entirety the previously adopted Resolution 08-006.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ACCMA Board intends to program $2 million in the 2010 STIP to a project(s) to be identifi ed by the CCTA ; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the CCTA agreed, at its June 18, 2008 meeting, to exchange this $2 million commitment of ACCMA 2010 STIP funding with an advance of its local transportation sales tax funds in order to further expedite delivery of the enhancements along and in the vicinit y of the Route 24 Corridor in Oakland associated with the Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ACCMA Board intends to program additional STIP funding , up to $4 million collecti vely, in the 2010 and 2012 STIPs for transportation enhancements along and in the vicinity of the Route 24 corridor in Oakland to effectuate certain prov isions of the above-referenced settlement agreement, subject to the necessary applications and documents being prepared by the City of Oakland and/or Caltrans as required by law and the policies of the MTC and CTC, and subject to the enhancements being included in MTC's update of its regional transportation plan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ACCMA Board authorizes the Executive Director to enter into fund transfer agreements and other agreements with the City of Oakland, CCTA and Caltrans as may be required to develop and implement the Route 24 Corridor enhancements.

DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the ACC MA at the regular ACCMA Board meeting held on Thursday, July 31, 2008 in Oakland, California, by the following vote:

AYES: ~3 NOES: tP ABSTAIN: ¢ ABSENT: ~

Gladys V. Parmelee, Board Secretary

Page 110 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 A LAMEDA C OUNlY Agenda Item 4.4 C ONGESTION M ANAGEMENT A G E NCY Attachment D

1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220 • OAKLAND , CA 94612 • PHONE : (510) 836-2560 • FAX: (510) 836-2185 E-MAIL: [email protected]·WEBSITE:accma.ca.gov

ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION 08-018 ACTransit Director Greg Harper State T r ansportation Impro vement Program (STIP) Commitments Alameda County Supervisors Nate Miley WHEREAS, SB 45 (Chapter 622, Statutes 1997) substantially revised the process Scott Haggerty for estimating the amount of state and federal funds available for transportation City of Alameda Mayor projects in the state and for appropriating and allocating the avail able funds to Bever ~ Johnson Vice Chair these projects; and

City of Albany Ccuncitmember WHEREAS, as part of this process, the Alameda County Congestion Farid Javandel Management Agency (ACCMA) is responsible for programming projects eligible BART for Regional Improvement Program funds , pursuant to Government Code Section Director Thomas Blalock 14527 (a), for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program

City of Berkeley (RTIP), and submission to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Councilmember Kriss Worthington and then to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), for inclusion in the State Transportation Impro vement Program (STIP); and City of Dublin Mayor Janet Lockhart WHEREAS, the MTC adopted Revised Resolution 3434 on September 23,2008, City of Emeryvill e Vice-Mayor that requests that the ACCMA commit funding to certain transit projects that are Ruth Atkin included in the 25-year Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP); and City of Fremont Councilmember Robert lVieckol'lski WHEREAS, the ACCMA has included the following three projects in the Draft

City of Hayward 2008 CWTP: 1) $160 million for BART Warm Springs Extension (WSX) Project; Councilmember Olden Henson 2) $85 million for the AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project; 3) $14.8 million for the Dumbarton Rail Project (three projects collectively referred to as City of Livermore Mayor the RESOLUTION 3434 Projects); and Marshall Kamena

City of Newark Councilmember WHEREAS, MTC Revised Resolution 3434 specifies that the transfer of $91 Luis Freitas million ofRM2 funds , previously identified for the Dumbarton Rail Project, to the City of Oakl and WSX Project is conditioned on the ACCMA adopting a board resolution Ccuncilmember LarryReid committing the like amount of RTIP funding to the Dumbarton Rail Project

City of Piedmont detailed above; and Ccuncilmember John Chiang WHEREAS, to accomplish the MTC request, the Final 2008 CWTP will need to City of Pleasanton Mayor be amended to reflect a reduction to the BART WSX Project from $160 million to Jennifer Hosterman $69 million of funding, with the balance of the fund ing assigned to the City of San Leandro Councilmember Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project and increasing the funding from $ 14.8 million to Joyce R. Starosciak $105.8 million; and

City of Union City Mayor Mark Green WHEREAS, MTC has committed $35 million in CMAQ funds to the BRT Chair Project contingent upon the ACCMA adopting a funding commitment plan (and

Executi ve Director exploring a strategy to advance the fundin g) for $40 M ofRTIP funds; and DennisR.Fay Page 111 Alameda County Conges tion Management Agency ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Resolution 08-0 18 Agenda Item 4.4 Page 2 Attachment D

WHEREAS, the Backfill of Lifeline Program Funds Project ($2 million), Mission/88 0 Project (Landscaping Component) ($3.5 million), Broadway/Jackson Interchange Project ($3 million), and the 880 Corridor Project ($1.9 million), which are collectively referred to as PREVIOUS STIP COMM ITMENT Projects, were proposed in the 2008 STIP but not included in the final 2008 STIP approved by the CTC; and

WHEREAS, Proposition IB was approved by the voters of California in November of 2006 and included approx imately $20 billion for infrastructure improvements, including multiple transportation programs; and

WHEREAS, projects in Alameda County that have been programmed with Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) , Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Account, Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP), and Infrastructure Bond Funding Programmed by the CTC through the STIP, are all components of the Proposition 1B Program, with this set of projects collectively referred to as the INFRAST RUCTURE BOND Projects; and

WHEREAS, the ACCMA was awarded/programmed approximately $500 million of Infrastructure Bond funding for multiple projects on 1-80, San Pablo Avenue, 1-880, 1-580, and 1­ 680; and

WHEREAS, the CTC has indicated that project sponsors are responsible to fund any cost increases on the Infrastructure Bond Program projects.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, the ACCMA amends the CWTP to move $9 1 million offunding commitment from the WSX Project to the Dumb arton Corridor Project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, the ACCMA will prioritize programming for RESOLUTION 3434, PREVIOUS STIP COMMITMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE BOND Projects in future STIPs; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the ACCMA will first commit up to fifty percent (50%) of new programming capacity in a STIP cycle to the RESOLUTION 3434 Projects collectively; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the ACCMA will commit at least twenty five percent (25%) of new programming capacity in a STIP cycle to the WSX project ifprogramming and financing criteria have been met; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE D, the Timing of Funding Requests and Financing Issues Assoc iated with Limited Programming Capacity are further discussed in Attachment A; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVE D, the ACCMA will work with project sponsors, funding agency partners, and elected officials and consider financing options such as bonding, advance construction authority, and exchanges to identify methods to advance funding; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the ACCMA will not commit to a year of programming for RESOLUTION 3434, PREVIOU S STIP COMMITMENT and INFRASTR UCTURE BOND Projects prior to a STIP programming cycle; and

Page 112 Alameda County Congestion Management Agency ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Resolution 08-018 Agenda Item 4.4 Page 3 Attachment D BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the ACCMA will require project sponsors to submit a request for funding that includes information that demonstrates that certain milestones are met, as detailed in Attachment B, to determine ifa programming action is appropriate.

DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency at the regular meeting ofthe Board on Thursday, December 11, 2008 in Oakland, California, by the following vote:

AYES: ABSTAIN: I ABSENT: I

1 rk re

ATTEST:

Gladys V. Parmelee, Board Secretary

Page 113 Alameda County Congestion Manage ment Agency ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Resolution 08-018 Agenda Item 4.4 Page 4 Attachment D ATTACHMENT A

Timing of Funding Requests and Financing Issues Associated with Limited Programming Capacity

The RESOLUTION 3434 Projects are likely to include requests larger than the funding available in an individual STIP cycle, and are expected to require non-standard programming arrangements. MTC Revised Resolution 3434 states that the financing costs of the RESOLUTION 3434 Projects are the responsibility of the project sponsor. The ACCMA Board may consider alternative financing proposals, includ ing:

•Considering financing costs within the funding proposed •Considering financing costs in addition to the funding proposed • Accepting only a portion of the overall financing

The financing for the three RESOLUTION 3434 Projects will be considered on a case by case basis at the time of programming. The RESOLUTION 3434 Projects, with respect to financing, will be treated equally.

A request for funding for the PREVIOUS STIP COMMITMENT Projects could be accommodated within a single STIP cycle and financing issues are not expected to be an issue.

The INFRASTRUCTURE BOND Projects funding needs may occur between the traditional STIP Cycle call for projects and may need to be addressed between STIP programming cycles.

Page 114 Alameda County Congestion Management Agency ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Resolution 08-018 Agenda Item 4.4 Page 5 Attachment D ATTACHMENT B

Programming Requirements

The ACCMA will require project sponsors to submit a request for funding that includes information that demonstrates that certain milestones are met to determine if a programming action is appropriate .

All projects will be required to: • Have a detailed project schedule that demonstrates that all timely use of funds provisions can be met, • Have a full funding plan to complete the project, and • Have a detailed cost estimate (including supporting assumptions).

RESOLUTION 3434 Projects will also be required to: • Submit an application for the proposed fundin g at the time of the call for projects of the funding cycle, and • Have a legally certified environmental document for CEQA and NEPA (if required) prior to the programming of funds, and • Have a clearly defined locally preferred alternative that has received formal approval from the governing bodies of the resp onsible local jurisdiction(s) where the improvements will be constructed.

PREVIOU S STIP COMMITMENT Projects will also be required to: •Submit an application for the proposed fundin g at the time of the call for projects of the funding cycle, and • Have a legally certified environmental document for CEQA and NEPA (ifrequired) prior to the programming offunds.

INFRASTRUCTUR E BOND Projects will also be required to: • Provide documentation on the project fundin g and reason for the cost increase for review and discussion prior to consideration.

Page 115 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.4 Attachment D

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 116 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.5

Memorandum

DATE: April 22, 2011

TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC)

FROM: Jacki Taylor, Programming Liaison

RE: Approval of Final FY 2011/12 Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program

Recommendation: It is recommended the Commission Board approve the Final FY 2011/12 TFCA Program.

Summary: The attached recommendation includes revisions to the draft FY 2011/12 TFCA Program presented to the Committees and Board in April 2011 and includes an increased recommendation of $1,208,805 of the total $1,832,361 available. Staff will continue to work with Sponsors and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) staff to program the current remaining balance of $623,556.

Information: Per the current Alameda CTC TFCA Guidelines, 70% of the available funds are to be allocated to the cities/county based on population, with a minimum of $10,000 to each jurisdiction. The remaining 30% of the funds are to be allocated to transit-related projects on a discretionary basis. A city or the county, with approval from the Alameda CTC Board, may choose to roll its annual “70%” allocation into a future program year. Since all available TFCA funds are to be programmed each year, a jurisdiction may borrow against its projected future year share in order to use rolled over funds in the current year. The preferred minimum TFCA request is $50,000.

As detailed in the attached final program recommendation, nine (9) of the thirteen (13) projects submitted are being recommended for TFCA funding. A primary consideration in the amount of TFCA funding recommended for each project is the result of a project’s cost-effectiveness evaluation. Of the four (4) projects not included in the recommendation, two (2) exceed the TFCA cost effectiveness threshold and two (2) have been determined to be ineligible to receive TFCA funds. Staff will continue to work to program the remaining balance of $623,566. This may include requesting additional project applications or increasing the current recommendation for projects in the final program. The projects in the program as approved by the Commission Board in May would be able to incur eligible project costs only after the date the master agreement between the Alameda CTC and the Air District has been executed (typically in early July). The FY 2011/12 Expenditure Plan (which determines the amount of TFCA funding available to program) is scheduled for adoption by the Air District in June 2011. The Air District guidelines allow up to 6 months from the date of the Air District’s approval of the Expenditure Plan, to approve additional projects if a balance of funds remains. Any funds not programmed by the end of the 6-

Page 117 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.5 month period are to be returned to the Air District. If a balance remains, a programming recommendation will be brought to the Committees and Board for approval sometime between late summer and early fall.

Attachments: Attachment A: Final FY 2011/12 TFCA Program Recommendation

2 Page 118

2011-2012 TFCA County Program Manager Fund - Final Program Draft Cost- Total Project TFCA TFCA Total Sponsor Project Name Project Description effectiveness Notes Cost Requested Balance Recommended (TFCA $/ton) 70% City/County Share Alameda Mattox Road Bike Install new Class 2 bike lanes (in both dorections) on Mattox $40,000 $40,000 $ 58,303 $ 49,316 $40,000 County Lanes Rd. between Foothill Blvd and Mission Blvd.

Albany City of Albany Funding to continue existing school-based trip $53,000 $53,000 $ 55,246 NA $0 School-based reduction/SR2S program in elementary schools and start a Albany is Trip Reduction middle school program. Requesting funding for two years considering Program (FYs 11/12 & 12/13). submitting a replacement project. California CSUEB - 2nd Implementation of a second shuttle bus for a.m. and p.m. $514,000 $194,000 $ - $ 63,283 $194,000 State Campus to BART peak hour service at the Cal State University, East Bay Proposed to be University, Shuttle campus connecting to the Hayward BART station. assigned to East Bay Requesting two years of funding for operations (FYs 11/12 & Hayward's portion of 12/13). 70% city/county share California Transportation Pilot Transportation Demand Management and Trip $52,000 $52,000 $ - $ 36,719 $52,000 State Demand Reduction program at the California State University East Bay Proposed to be University, Management to encourage the use of driving alternatives for staff, faculty assigned to East Bay Program and the University students. Requesting funding for FY 11/12. Hayward's portion of 70% city/county share Fremont North Fremont Improved arterial operations along four corridors in North $265,000 $265,000 $ 307,784 $ 64,931 $256,000 Arterial Fremont: Fremont Blvd, Decoto Rd, Paseo Padre Parkway, Alvarado Blvd Management and Alvarado Blvd. Some of the existing traffic signal system segment is cost equipment will be upgraded and new signal coordination effective with a timings will be implemented at all signalized project $9,000 grant intersections. reduction. Oakland Traffic Signal Along Martin Luther King Jr. Way, synchronization of traffic $125,000 $125,000 $ 392,431 $ 88,820 $125,000 Synchronization signals at four intersections between 55th and Hwy 24 and Project is cost along Martin Luther installation of detection equipment at the Hwy 24 WB on- effective with 2-year King Jr. Way ramp intersection. post-project reporting required. ACTAC Pleasanton Pleasanton Trip The project consists of a three-pronged approach to reducing $148,000 $52,816 $ 32,843 $ 59,622 $52,816 Reduction Program trips through various employer-based, residential-based and school-based programs. Requesting funding for FY 11/12.

San Leandro San Leandro LINKS Free shuttle providing service from the San Leandro BART $629,000 $149,000 $ 83,621 $ 89,672 $59,500 Meeting

Shuttle station to businesses in West San Leandro. Shuttle runs Agenda every 20 min, Mon - Friday from approx. 5:45am - 9:45 am &

Project is cost Attachment 3pm - 8pm. Requesting two years of funding for operations effective up to

Page (FYs 11/12 & 12/13). $59.5K of TFCA.

Union City Union City CNG Replace 10-year old compressor with a newer model in order $308,000 $100,474 $ 105,421 NA $0 05/03/11

Compressor to provide adequate fuel for an increased demand. Item Per Air District, Replacement project is not eligible 119 for TFCA funding. Total$ 2,134,000 $ 1,031,290 $779,316 4.5 A TFCA Available Balance $ 1,416,922 $ 1,416,922 $ 1,416,922 Unrequested Balance $ 385,632 $ 637,606 Page 1 of 2

2011-2012 TFCA County Program Manager Fund - Final Program Draft Cost- Total Project TFCA TFCA Total Sponsor Project Name Project Description effectiveness Notes Cost Requested Balance Recommended (TFCA $/ton) 30% Transit Discretionary Share Alameda CTC Alameda County The GRH program provides a "guaranteed ride home" to $245,000 $245,000 $ 20,093 $245,000 Guaranteed Ride registered employees in Alameda County as an incentive to Home (GRH) use alternative modes of transportation (bus, train, carpool, Program vanpool, etc.) to get to work. Requesting two years of funding (FYs 11/12 & 12/13) . LAVTA Purchase 4 Hybrid Replace four (4) 1196 New Flyer Diesel (40ft) buses with four $919,705 $319,705 NA $0 Diesel Buses (4) new hybrid diesel transit (29ft) buses. TFCA funding proposed to fund a portion of the incremental cost difference Per Air District, between new diesel and new hybrid-diesel buses. project is not eligible for TFCA funding. LAVTA Route 9 Route 9 provides service to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART $343,575 $42,947 $ 83,166 $42,947 BART/Hacienda Station and major employment centers within the City of Business Park Pleasanton. Requesting funding for FY 11/12 operations. Shuttle LAVTA Route 10 - Dublin/ Route 10 services the Dublin/Pleasanton BART, ACE $3,825,450 $141,542 $ 26,165 $141,542 Pleasanton BART Livermore stations and Lawrence Livermore National to Livermore ACE Laboratory (LLNL). Requesting funding for FY 11/12 Station operations. LAVTA Route 15 - Route 15 provides service in Livermore between the ACE $989,550 $98,955 $ 878,872 $0 Livermore ACE to Station in Livermore and the Springtown District. Requesting Springtown funding for FY 11/12 operations. Project is not cost- effective. Total $6,323,280 $848,149 $429,489 TFCA Available Balance $ 415,439 $ 415,439 $ 415,439 Unrequested Balance $ (432,710) $ (14,050)

Draft Cost- TFCA Summary Total Request effectiveness Recommended Difference Balance (TFCA $/ton) Total TFCA

$ 1,031,290 $ 1,416,922 NA $779,316 $ 637,606 ACTAC Request -70% Total TFCA $ 848,149 $ 415,439 NA $429,489 $ (14,050) Request -30% Total TFCA $ 1,879,439 $ 1,832,361 NA $ 1,208,805 $ 623,556

Request Meeting Agenda Attachment Page 05/03/11 Item 120 4.5 A

Page 2 of 2 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.1

Memorandum

DATE: April 22, 2011 TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC) FROM: Matt Todd, Manager of Programming

SUBJECT: Approval of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) At Risk Report

Recommendations: It is recommended that the Alameda CTC Board approve the attached STIP At Risk Report, dated April 30, 2011. Summary: The Report includes a total of 34 STIP projects being monitored for compliance with the STIP “Timely Use of Funds” provisions. Red zone projects are considered at a relatively high risk of non-compliance with the provisions. Yellow zone projects are considered at moderate risk, and Green zone at low risk. Information: The report is based on the information made available to the Alameda CTC’s project monitoring team. This information stems from the project sponsors as well as other funding agencies such as Caltrans, MTC and the CTC. The report segregates projects into Red, Yellow, and Green zones. The criteria for determining the project zones are listed near the end of the report. The durations included in the criteria are intended to provide adequate time for project sponsors to perform the required activities to meet the deadline(s). The risk zone associated with each risk factor is indicated in the tables following the report. Projects with multiple risk factors are listed in the zone of higher risk. The Alameda CTC requests copies of certain documents related to the required activities to verify that the deadlines have been met. Typically, the documentation requested are copies of documents submitted by the sponsor to other agencies involved with transportation funding such as Caltrans, MTC, and the CTC. The one exception is the documentation requested for the “Complete Expenditures” deadline which does not have a corresponding requirement from the other agencies. Sponsors must provide documentation supported by their accounting department as proof that the Complete Expenditures deadline has been met. Attachments: Attachment A - STIP At Risk Report

Page 121 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.1

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 122 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.1 Attachment A

STIP At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 2010 STIP Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Red Zone Projects Index PP No. Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 1 2009A AC Transit Maintenance Facilities Upgrade RIP $3,705 Con 06/07 Complete Expend Note 1 R $3,705K Alloc'd 9/7/06 R 12-Mo Ext App'd Jan 10 2 0139F ACCMA Rt 580, Landscaping, San Leandro Estudillo Ave - 141st RIP-TE $350 Con 10/11 Allocate Funds 6/30/11 R 5-month Ext Req May CTC R

3 2179 ACCMA Planning, Programming and Monitoring 2 RIP $1,409 Con 08/09 Complete Expend 6/30/11 R $1,409 Alloc'd 7/24/08 R RIP $1,209 Con 09/10 Complete Expend 6/30/12 G $1,209 Alloc'd 7/9/09 RIP $1,948 Con 10/11 Complete Expend 6/30/13 G RIP $1,947 Con 11/12 Allocate Funds 6/30/12 G RIP $1,993 Con 12/13 Allocate Funds 6/30/13 G 4 0016U ACTIA I-580 Castro Valley I/C Improvements RIP $7,315 Con 07/08 Accept Contract 7/11/11 R $7.315M Alloc'd 3/12/08 R Contract Awd 7/11/08 5 2009L Alameda Co. Vasco Road Safety Improvements RIP $4,600 Con 07/08 Accept Contract 7/29/11 R $4.6M Alloc'd 2/14/08 R Contract Awd 7/29/08 6 2100F Alameda Co. Grove Wy sidewalk improvements, Meekland-Haviland RIP-TE $1,150 Con 10/11 Allocate Funds 6/30/11 R Allocation Sched May CTC R

7 1014 BART BART Transbay Tube Seismic Retrofit RIP $38,000 Con 07/08 Complete Expend 6/3/11 R $38M Alloc'd 9/5/07 R 8 2008B BART MacArthur BART renovate & enhance entry plaza RIP-TE $954 Con 10/11 Allocate Funds 6/30/11 R May Allocation planned R

9 2103A BART Coliseum BART pedestrian improvements RIP-TE $885 Con 10/11 Allocate Funds 6/30/11 R 6-month Ext Req June CTC R

10 2100G Berkeley Berkeley Bay Trail Project, Seg 1 RIP-TE $1,928 Con 10/11 Allocate Funds 6/30/11 R 12-month Ext Req May CTC R

11 2100H Dublin Alamo Canal Regional Trail, Rt 580 undercrossing RIP-TE $1,021 Con 10/11 Allocate Funds 6/30/11 R 18-month Ext Req May CTC R

12 2103A Oakland Oakland Coliseum TOD RIP-TE $885 Con 10/11 Allocate Funds 6/30/11 R June Allocation planned. R June Ext Req ready if ROW issue not resolved. 13 2110 Union City Union City Intermodal Station RIP $4,600 Con 07/08 Accept Contract 5/13/11 R $4.6M Alloc'd 9/5/07 R RIP $720 Con 05/06 Accept Contract 5/13/11 R $720K Alloc'd 11/9/06 RIP-TE $5,307 Con 05/06 Accept Contract 5/13/11 R $5,307K Alloc'd 11/9/06 RIP-TE $2,000 Con 06/07 Accept Contract 5/13/11 R $2,000K Alloc'd 11/9/06 RIP $9,787 Con 06/07 Accept Contract 5/13/11 R $9,787K Alloc'd 11/9/06 6-Mo Ext App'd 9/23/10 for Accept Contract

Page 1 of 4

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring Page 123 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.1 Attachment A

STIP At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 2010 STIP Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Red Zone Projects (Cont.) Index PP No. Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 14 2110A Union City Union City Intermodal Stn, Ped Enhanc PH 2 & 2A RIP-TE $3,000 Con 10/11 Allocate Funds 6/30/11 R Allocation Sched June CTC R

RIP $715 Con 11/12 Allocate Funds 6/30/12 G

Yellow Zone Projects Index PP No. Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 15 2009W Berkeley Ashby BART Station Intermodal Imps RIP $4,614 Con 07/08 Accept Contract 12/26/11 Y $4,614 Alloc'd 6/26/08 Y RIP $1,500 Con 09/10 Accept Contract 12/26/11 Y AB 3090 app'd 8/28/08 $1.5M Alloc'd 9/10/09

Green Zone Projects Index PP No. Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 16 2009B AC Transit SATCOM Expansion RIP $1,000 Con 06/07 Accept Contract Note 3 G $1,000K Alloc'd 9/7/06 G 17 2009C AC Transit Berkeley/Oakland/San Leandro Corridor MIS RIP $2,700 Env 06/07 Final Invoice/Report Note 3 NA $2,700K Alloc'd 4/26/07 G 18 2009D AC Transit Bus Component Rehabilitation RIP $4,500 Con 06/07 Accept Contract Note 3 G $4.5M Alloc'd 7/20/06 G 19 2009Q AC Transit Bus Purchase RIP $14,000 Con 06/07 Accept Contract Note 3 G $14M Alloc'd 10/12/06 G 20 0016O ACCMA I-680 SB HOT Lane Accommodation RIP $8,000 Con 07/08 Accept Contract 6/26/12 G $8M Alloc'd 6/26/08 G 42 months for Accept App'd by CTC 21 0044C ACCMA I-880 Reconstruction, 29th to 23rd RIP $2,000 PSE 10/11 Complete Expend 6/30/13 G G 22 0062E ACCMA I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility RIP $954 Env 07/08 Final Invoice/Report NA $954 Alloc'd 9/5/07 G Contra Costa RIP Expenditures Comp

Page 2 of 4

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring Page 124 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.1 Attachment A

STIP At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 2010 STIP Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Green Zone Projects (cont.) Index PP No. Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 23 2100K ACCMA I-880 Landscape/Hardscape Improvements in San Leandro RIP-TE $400 PSE 09/10 Complete Expend 6/30/12 G $400K Alloc'd 6/30/10 G 24 0081D ACTA Rte 84 Expressway - Fremont and Union City RIP $9,300 Con 14/15 Allocate Funds 6/30/15 G G 25 2009N Alameda Tinker Avenue Extension RIP $4,000 Con 07/08 Accept Contract 3/17/12 G $4M Alloc'd 9/25/08 G Contract Awd 3/17/09 26 2009P BART Ala. Co. BART Station Renovation RIP $3,000 Con 07/08 Accept Contract 10/30/12 G $3M Alloc'd 12/11/08 G 4-Mo Ext App'd June 09 RIP $248 PSE 07/08 $248 Alloc'd 9/5/07 Expend. Complete 27 2009Y BART Ashby BART Station Concourse/Elevator Imps RIP-TE $1,200 Con 07/08 Accept Contract 1/22/12 G $1,200 Alloc'd 6/26/08 G 28 2103 BART Oakland Airport Connector RIP $20,000 Con 10/11 Accept Contract 9/1/14 G App'd into STIP and G allocated 9/23/10 Awarded Oct 2010 29 2014U GGBHTD SF Golden Gate Bridge Barrier RIP $12,000 Con 11/12 Allocate Funds 6/30/12 G G 30 2009K LAVTA Satellite Bus Operating Facility (Phases 1 & 2) RIP $4,000 Con 11/12 Allocate Funds 6/30/12 G Moved to Delivered List at G Mar 2011 CTC RIP $1,500 Con 06/07 Final Invoice/Report NA Contract Accepted 31 2100 MTC Planning, Programming and Monitoring 2 RIP $113 Con 09/10 Complete Expend 6/30/12 G $113 Alloc'd 7/9/09 G RIP $113 Con 10/11 Complete Expend 6/30/11 NA 10/11 Expenditures Comp. RIP $114 Con 11/12 Allocate Funds 6/30/12 G RIP $114 Con 12/13 Allocate Funds 6/30/13 G RIP $118 Con 13/14 Allocate Funds 6/30/14 G RIP $122 Con 14/15 Allocate Funds 6/30/15 G 32 1022 Oakland Rte. 880 Access at 42nd Ave./High St., APD RIP $5,990 R/W 07/08 Complete Expend 2/29/12 G $5.990M Alloc'd 12/13/07 G 20-Mo Ext App'd May 33 2100C1 Oakland MacArthur Transit Hub Improvement, 40th St RIP-TE $193 Con 07/08 Final Invoice/Report NA Alloc App'd 7/26/07 G 34 2100E Oakland 7th St. / West Oakland TOD ARRA-TE $1,300 Con 09/10 Accept Contract 9/30/12 G $1,300 Obligated 8/5/09 G Contract Awd 2009 Notes: 1 The "Date Req'd By" for the required activity is before the status date of this report. Sponsor is working with Caltrans, MTC and Aalmeda CTC to expedite the required activity and/or satisfy the requirement. 2 PPM funds programmed in the Con phase are not subject to the typical construction phase requirements. Once PPM funds are allocated, the next deadline is "Complete Expenditures." 3 Transit projects receiving State-only funds are subject to project specific requirements in agreements with Caltrans (Federal funds are typically transferred to FTA grant).

Page 3 of 4

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring Page 125 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.1 Attachment A

STIP At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 2010 STIP Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

2010 STIP -Timely Use of Funds Provisions The At Risk Report monitors the STIP Timely Use of Funds Provisions included in the current STIP Guidelines as adopted by the CTC. The current Timely Use of Funds Provisions are as follows: Required Activity Description Allocation For all phases, by the end (June 30th) of the fiscal year programmed in the STIP.

Construction Contract Award 1 Within six (6) months of allocation.

Accept Contract Within 36 months of contract award.

Complete Expenditures For Env, PSE, & R/W funds, costs must be expended by the end of the second FY following the FY in which the funds were allocated. Final Invoice For Env, PSE, & R/W funds, within 180 days (6 months) after the FY in which the (Final Report of Expenditures) expenditure occurred. For Con funds, within 180 Days (6 months) of contract acceptance. Zone Criteria The At Risk Report utilizes the deadlines associated with each required activity of the STIP Timely use of Funds Provisions to assign a zone of risk. The following zone criteria was developed for each of these risk zones (Red, Yellow, & Green). For the Final Invoice, this activity is tracked but no zone of risk is assigned. Criteria Timeframes for Required Activities Required Activity Red Zone Yellow Zone Green Zone Allocation -Env Phase within four months within four (4) to eight (8) All conditions other than Red or months Yellow Zones Allocation -PS&E Phase within six months within six (6) to ten (10) All conditions other than Red or months Yellow Zones Allocation -Right of Way Phase within eight months within eight (8) to twelve All conditions other than Red or (12) months Yellow Zones Allocation -Construction Phase within eight months within eight (8) to twelve All conditions other than Red or (12) months Yellow Zones Construction Contract Award within six months NA All conditions other than Red or Yellow Zones Accept Contract within six months within six (6) to twelve (12) All conditions other than Red or months Yellow Zones Complete Expenditures within eight months within eight (8) to twelve All conditions other than Red or (12) months Yellow Zones Final Invoice NA NA NA (Final Report of Expenditures) Other Zone Criteria Yellow Zone STIP /TIP Amendment pending Red Zone Extension Request pending Notes:

Page 4 of 4 Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 126 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2

Memorandum

DATE: April 22, 2011 TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC) FROM: Matt Todd, Manager of Programming

SUBJECT: Approval of Federal Surface Transportation/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (STP/CMAQ) Program At Risk Report

Recommendations: It is recommended that the Alameda CTC Board approve the attached Federal STP/CMAQ Program At Risk Report, dated April 30, 2011. Summary: The report includes 50 locally-sponsored, federally-funded projects segregated by “zone.” Red zone projects are considered at a relatively high risk of non-compliance with the provisions of MTC’s Resolution 3606, the Regional STP/CMAQ Project Delivery Policy. Yellow zone projects are considered at moderate risk, and Green zone at low risk.

Information: The report is based on the information made available to the Alameda CTC’s project monitoring team. This information stems from the project sponsors as well as other funding agencies such as MTC and Caltrans Local Assistance. The report is intended to identify activities required to comply with the requirements set forth in MTC’s Resolution 3606, the Regional STP/CMAQ Project Delivery Policy–Revised (as of July 23, 2008). Per Resolution 3606, the deadline to submit the request for authorization was February 1, 2011 and the obligation deadline is April 30, 2011 for projects programmed with funding in federal FY 2010/11. The report segregates projects into Red, Yellow, and Green zones. The criteria for determining the project zones are listed in Appendix A of the report. The durations included in the criteria are intended to provide adequate time for project sponsors to perform the required activities to meet the deadline(s). A project may have multiple risk factors that indicate multiple zones. The risk zone associated with each risk factor is indicated in the tables. Projects with multiple risk factors are listed in the zone of higher risk. Appendix B provides details related to the deadlines associated with each of the Required Activities used to determine which zone of risk a project is assigned to. Appendix C provides the date of the last invoice for projects with obligated funds. The deadline for submitting the environmental package one year in advance of the obligation deadline for right of way or construction capital funding is tracked and reported, but is not affiliated with any zone of risk. Attachments: Attachment A - Federal STP/CMAQ Program At Risk Report

Page 127 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 128 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Red Zone Projects Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 1 ALA030002 Ala County Vasco Road Safety Imps. Phase 1A STP $2,250 Con 07/08 Advertise Contract Note 1 R $2,250 Obligated 8/31/10 R Award Contract 05/31/11 R Submit First Invoice 08/31/11 G Liquidate Funds 08/31/16 G 2 TBD Ala County Marshall Elementary School Vicinity Improvements SRTS $500 PE 09/10 Request Field Review Note 1 R Fed Safe Routes to School R Submit Req for Auth Note 1 R Obligate Funds Note 1 R 3 TBD Ala. County Fairview Elementary School Vicinity Improvements SRTS $508 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R Fed Safe Routes to School Y Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 4 TBD Ala. County Install Traffic Signal and Provide Frontage Improvements (Castro Valley Blvd. and Wisteria St.) HSIP $640 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R Hwy Safety Imp Program Y Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 5 TBD Ala. County Remove Permanent Obstacle along Shoulder (Foothill Road) HSIP $427 Con 10/11 Obligate Funds 04/30/11 R Hwy Safety Imp Program Y 6 ALA110039 Albany Albany - Pierce Street Pavement Rehabilitation STP $117 Con 10/11 Obligate Funds 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 R 7 ALA110024 Dublin Dublin Citywide Street Resurfacing STP $547 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 R Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 8 ALA110018 Fremont Fremont Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation STP $3,138 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 08/22/11 R $3,138 Obligated 2/22/11 R Award Contract 11/22/11 Y Submit First Invoice 02/22/12 G Liquidate Funds 02/22/17 G 9 TBD Fremont Paseo Padre Parkway - Walnut to Washington HSIP $23 PE 10/11 Submit First Invoice 05/18/11 R Hwy Safety Imp Program R Liquidate Funds 11/18/16 G $23 Obligated 11/18/10 HSIP $120 Con 10/11 Submit Req for Auth Note 1 R Obligate Funds 04/30/11 R

Page 1 of 6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 129 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Red Zone Projects (cont.) Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 10 TBD Fremont Walnut Avenue from Fremont to Parkhurst & Argonaut Way from Parkhurst to Mowry HSIP $518 PE 10/11 Request Field Review Note 1 R Hwy Safety Imp Program R Submit Req for Auth Note 1 R Obligate Funds Note 1 R 11 TBD Fremont Install Median Barrier, Install Raised Median and Improve Delineation (Mowry) HSIP $164 Con 10/11 Obligate Funds 04/30/11 R Hwy Safety Imp Program Y 12 TBD Fremont Replace Concrete Poles with Aluminum in Median (Paseo Parkway) HSIP $264 Con 10/11 Obligate Funds 04/30/11 R Hwy Safety Imp Program Y 13 ALA110019 Hayward Hayward Various Arterials Pavement Rehab STP $1,336 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 08/23/11 R $1,336 Obligated 2/23/11 R Award Contract 11/23/11 Y Submit First Invoice 02/23/12 G Liquidate Funds 02/23/17 G 14 TBD Hayward Carlos Bee Blvd. between West Loop and Mission HSIP $653 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R NA Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 15 ALA110013 Livermore Iron Horse Trail Extension in Downtown Livermore CMAQ $1,566 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 Y Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 16 ALA110037 Livermore Livermore Village Streetscape Infrastructure CMAQ $2,500 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 Y Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 17 ALA110016 Newark Newark - Cedar Blvd and Jarvis Ave Pavement Rehab STP $682 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 Y Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 18 ALA110014 Oakland Oakland - MacArthur Blvd Streetscape CMAQ $1,700 Con 10/11 Obligate Funds 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 R Request Pkg submitted 19 TBD Oakland Multiple School (5 Schools) Improvements Along Major Routes SRTS $802 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R Fed Safe Routes to School Y Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G

Page 2 of 6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 130 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Red Zone Projects (cont.) Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 20 ALA110021 Pleasanton Pleasanton Various Streets Pavement Rehab STP $876 Con 10/11 Obligate Funds 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 R 21 ALA110031 Pleasanton Pleasanton - Foothill/I-580/IC Bike/Ped Facilities CMAQ $709 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 R Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 22 ALA110010 Port Shore Power Initiative CMAQ $3,000 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 12/30/10 Y Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 23 ALA110027 San Leandro San Leandro Downtown-BART Pedestrian Interface CMAQ $312 PE 10/11 Submit First Invoice 06/21/11 R $312 Obligated 12/21/10 R Liquidate Funds 12/21/16 G CMAQ $4,298 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 24 ALA110028 Union City Union City Blvd Corridor Bicycle Imp. Phase 1 CMAQ $860 Con 11/12 Req Field Review 04/30/11 R App'd into TIP 1/6/11 Y Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 25 ALA110036 Union City Union City BART East Plaza Enhancements CMAQ $4,450 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 08/02/11 R $4,450 Obligated 2/2/11 R Award Contract 11/02/11 Y Submit First Invoice 02/02/12 G Liquidate Funds 02/02/17 G

Yellow Zone Projects Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 26 ALA110009 ACCMA Bike Repair and Encouragement Vehicle CMAQ $500 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 09/29/11 Y $500 Obligated 3/29/11 R Award Contract 12/29/11 Y Obligated w/ALA110033 Submit First Invoice 03/29/12 G Liquidate Funds 03/29/17 G 27 ALA110033 ACCMA Alameda County Safe Routes to School CMAQ $2,289 Con 10/11 Award Contract 12/29/11 Y RFP released 4/5/11 R STP $400 Con 10/11 $2,689 Obligated 3/29/11 Obligated w/ALA110009 Submit First Invoice 03/29/12 G Liquidate Funds 03/29/17 G

Page 3 of 6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 131 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Yellow Zone Projects (cont.) Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 28 ALA110025 Alameda Alameda - Otis Drive Rehabilitation STP $837 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 09/08/11 Y $837 Obligated 3/8/11 R Award Contract 12/08/11 Y Submit First Invoice 03/08/12 G Liquidate Funds 03/08/17 G 29 ALA090068 BART MacArthur BART Plaza Remodel CMAQ $625 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 09/16/11 Y $625 Obligated 3/16/11 NA Award Contract 12/16/11 Y Submit First Invoice 03/16/12 G Liquidate Funds 03/16/17 G 30 ALA110007 Berkeley City of Berkeley Transit Action Plan - TDM CMAQ $1,990 PE 10/11 Submit First Invoice 08/22/11 Y $1,990 Obligated 2/22/11 R Liquidate Funds 02/22/17 G CMAQ $10 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 31 ALA110012 Fremont Fremont CBD/Midtown Streetscape CMAQ $540 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 10/13/11 Y $540 Obligated 4/13/11 R Award Contract 01/13/12 Y Submit First Invoice 04/13/12 G Liquidate Funds 04/13/17 G CMAQ $1,060 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G TIP Amendment Pending Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G To move $1,060 to 11/12 32 ALA110022 Berkeley Berkeley - Sacramento St Rehab - Dwight to Ashby STP $955 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 09/18/11 Y $955 Obligated 3/18/11 R Award Contract 12/18/11 Y Submit First Invoice 03/18/12 G Liquidate Funds 03/18/17 G 33 ALA110035 Hayward South Hayward BART Area/Dixon Street Streetscape CMAQ $536 PE 10/11 Submit First Invoice 07/18/11 Y $536 Obligated 1/18/11 R Liquidate Funds 01/18/17 G CMAQ $1,682 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 34 ALA110015 Livermore Livermore Downtown Lighting Retrofit CMAQ $176 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 10/04/11 Y $176 Obligated 4/4/11 R Award Contract 01/04/12 Y Submit First Invoice 04/04/12 G Liquidate Funds 04/04/17 G

Page 4 of 6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 132 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Yellow Zone Projects (cont.) Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 35 ALA110023 Livermore Livermore - 2011 Various Arterials Rehab STP $1,028 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 09/21/11 Y $1,028 Obligated 3/21/11 R Award Contract 12/21/11 Y Submit First Invoice 03/21/12 G Liquidate Funds 03/21/17 G 36 ALA110006 Oakland Various Streets Resurfacing and Bikeway Facilities STP $560 PE 10/11 Submit First Invoice 08/22/11 Y $560 Obligated 2/22/11 R Liquidate Funds 02/22/17 G STP $3,492 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 37 ALA110020 San Leandro San Leandro - Marina Blvd Rehabilitation STP $807 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 09/29/11 Y $807 Obligated 3/29/11 R Award Contract 12/29/11 Y Submit First Invoice 03/29/12 G Liquidate Funds 03/29/17 G 38 ALA110017 Union City Union City - Dyer Street Rehabilitation STP $861 Con 10/11 Advertise Contract 10/13/11 Y $861 Obligated 4/13/11 R Award Contract 01/13/12 Y Submit First Invoice 04/13/12 G Liquidate Funds 04/13/17 G

Green Zone Projects Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 39 ALA090069 Ala. County Alameda County: Rural Roads Pavement Rehab STP $320 PE 10/11 Submit First Invoice 09/16/11 G $320 Obligated 3/16/11 NA Liquidate Funds 03/16/17 G STP $1,815 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 40 ALA110026 Ala County Alameda Co - Central Unincorporated Pavement Rehab STP $50 PE 10/11 Submit First Invoice 09/23/11 G $50 Obligated 3/23/11 R Liquidate Funds 03/23/17 G STP $1,071 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G

Page 5 of 6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 133 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Green Zone Projects (cont.) Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes Prev ($x 1,000) Req’d By Zone 41 TBD Ala. County Patterson Pass Road Widen or Improve Shoulder HRRR $717 Con 12/13 Req Field Review 04/30/12 G High Risk Rural Roads G Submit Req for Auth 02/01/13 G Obligate Funds 04/30/13 G 42 ALA110030 Albany Albany - Buchanan Bicycle and Pedestrian Path CMAQ $1,702 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G App'd into TIP 1/6/11 Y Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 43 ALA090068 BART MacArthur BART Plaza Remodel CMAQ $626 Con 10/11 $626 Obligated 3/16/11 R Transfer to FTA Grant 44 ALA110032 BART Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza/Transit Area Imps. CMAQ $706 PE 10/11 $706 Obligated 3/16/11 R CMAQ $1,099 Con 10/11 $1,099 Obligated 3/16/11 Transfer to FTA Grant 45 ALA110038 BART BART - West Dublin BART Station Ped Access Imps CMAQ $21 PE 10/11 $21 Obligated 2/2/11 R CMAQ $839 Con 10/11 $839 Obligated 2/2/11 Transfer to FTA Grant 46 ALA110034 Dublin West Dublin BART Golden Gate Drive Streetscape CMAQ $67 PE 10/11 Submit First Invoice 09/18/11 G $67 Obligated 3/18/11 R Liquidate Funds 03/18/17 G CMAQ $580 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 47 ALA110029 Oakland Oakland Foothill Blvd Streetscape CMAQ $2,200 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 48 TBD Oakland Multiple School (5 Elem. + 1 Middle) Vicinity Improvements SRTS $638 Con 10/11 Submit First Invoice 11/22/11 G Obligated 11/22/10 Y Liquidate Funds 11/22/16 G 49 TBD Oakland West Grand at Market, Macarthur at Fruitvale & Market at 55th HSIP $223 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Hwy Safety Imp Program R Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G 50 TBD Oakland Various Intersections HSIP $81 Con 11/12 Submit Req for Auth 02/01/12 G Hwy Safety Imp Program R Obligate Funds 04/30/12 G Notes: 1 MTC Reso 3606 deadline is before the status date of this report. Sponsor is working with Caltrans, MTC and Alameda CTC to expedite/complete required activity.

Page 6 of 6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 134 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix A Federal At Risk Report Zone Criteria Required Activities per Resolution 3606 (Revised July 23, 2008) Required Activities Criteria Timeframes for Required Activities Monitored by CMA1 Red Zone Yellow Zone Green Zone Request Project Field Review Project in TIP Project in TIP for less than All conditions other than for more than nine (9) nine (9) months, and Red or Yellow Zones months, or obligation obligation deadline for Con deadline for Con funds funds more than 15 months within 15 months. away. Submit Environmental Package NA NA NA

Approved DBE Program and NA NA NA Methodology Submit Request for Authorization (PE) within three (3) months within three (3) to six (6) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Submit Request for Authorization (R/W) within four (4) months within four (4) to nine (9) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Submit Request for Authorization (Con) within six (6) months All conditions other than Red or Yellow Zones Obligation/ FTA Transfer within two (2) months within two (2) to four (4) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Advertise Construction within four (4) months within four (4) to six (6) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Award Contract within six (6) months within six (6) to nine (9) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Award into FTA Grant within two (2) months within two (2) to four (4) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Submit First Invoice within two (2) months within two (2) to four (4) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Liquidate Funds within four (4) months within four (4) to nine (9) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Move to Appendix D Project Closeout within four (4) months within four (4) to nine (9) All conditions other than months Red or Yellow Zones Other Zone Criteria Red Zone Projects with funds programmed in the same FY for both a project development phase (i.e. Env or PSE) and a capital phase (i.e. R/W or Con) without the project development phase(s) obligated. Yellow Zone Projects with an Amendment to the TIP pending.

Notes: 1 See Apendix B for more information about the Required Activities and Resolution 3606.

Page A1 of A1

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 135 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix B Definitions of the Required Activities per Resolution 3606 (As revised July 23, 2008)

Index Definition Deadline 1 Req Proj Field Rev Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “Implementing agencies are required to request a field review from Caltrans 12 months from approval Local Assistance within 12 months of approval of the project in the TIP1, but no less than 12 months prior to the in the TIP1, but no less obligation deadline of construction funds. This policy also applies to federal-aid projects in the STIP. The than 12 months prior to requirement does not apply to projects for which a field review would not be applicable, such as FTA transfers, the obligation deadline regional operations projects and planning activities. Failure for an implementing agency to make a good-faith effort of construction funds. in requesting and scheduling a field review from Caltrans Local Assistance within twelve months of programming into the TIP could result in the funding being reprogrammed and restrictions on future programming and obligations. Completed field review forms must be submitted to Caltrans in accordance with Caltrans Local Assistance procedures.”

2 Sub ENV package Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “Implementing agencies are required to submit a complete environmental 12 months prior to the package to Caltrans for all projects (except those determined Programmatic Categorical Exclusion as determined by obligation deadline for Caltrans at the field review), twelve months prior to the obligation deadline for right of way or construction funds. RW or Con funds. This policy creates a more realistic time frame for projects to progress from the field review through the (No change) environmental and design process, to the right of way and construction phase. If the environmental process, as determined at the field review, will take longer than 12 months before obligation, the implementing agency is responsible for delivering the complete environmental submittal in a timely manner. Failure to comply with this provision could result in the funding being reprogrammed. The requirement does not apply to FTA transfers, regional operations projects or planning activities.”

3 Approved DBE Prog Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “Obligation of federal funds may not occur for contracted activities (any Approved program and combination of environmental/ design/ construction/ procurement activities performed outside the agency) until and methodology in place unless an agency has an approved DBE program and methodology for the current federal fiscal year. Therefore, prior to the FFY the agencies with federal funds programmed in the TIP must have a current approved DBE Program and annual funds are programmed in methodology (if applicable) in place prior to the fiscal year the federal funds are programmed in the TIP. the TIP. STP/CMAQ funding for agencies without approved DBE methodology for the current year are subject to redirection to other projects after March 1. Agencies should begin the DBE process no later than January 1 to meet the March 1 deadline. Projects advanced under the Expedited Project Selection Process (EPSP) must have an approved DBE program and annual methodology for the current year (if applicable) prior to the advancement of funds.”

4 Sub Req for Auth Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “In order to ensure funds are obligated or transferred to FTA in a timely manner, February 1 of FY in the implementing agency is required to deliver a complete funding obligation / FTA Transfer request package to which funds are Caltrans Local Assistance by February 1 of the year the funds are listed in the TIP. Projects with complete packages programmed in the TIP. delivered by February 1 of the programmed year will have priority for available OA, after ACA conversions that are included in the Obligation Plan. If the project is delivered after February 1 of the programmed year, the funds will not be the highest priority for obligation in the event of OA limitations, and will compete for limited OA with projects advanced from future years. Funding for which an obligation/ FTA transfer request is submitted after the February 1 deadline will lose its priority for OA, and be viewed as subject to reprogramming.”

Page B1 of B3

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 136 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix B Definitions of the Required Activities per Resolution 3606 (As revised July 23, 2008)

Index Definition Deadline 5 Obligate Funds/ Transfer to FTA Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “STP and CMAQ funds are subject to an obligation/FTA transfer deadline of April 30 of FY in which April 30 of the fiscal year the funds are programmed in the TIP. Implementing agencies are required to submit the funds are programmed in completed request for obligation or FTA transfer to Caltrans Local Assistance by February 1 of the fiscal year the the TIP. funds are programmed in the TIP, and receive an obligation/ FTA transfer of the funds by April 30 of the fiscal year programmed in the TIP. For example, projects programmed in FY 2007-08 of the TIP have an obligation/FTA transfer request submittal deadline (to Caltrans) of February 1, 2008 and an obligation/FTA transfer deadline of April 30, 2008. Projects programmed in FY 2008-09 have an obligation request submittal deadline (to Caltrans) of February 1, 2009 and an obligation/FTA transfer deadline of April 30, 2009. No extensions will be granted to the obligation deadline.” 6 Execute PSA Per MTC Resolution 3606, “The implementing agency must execute and return the Program Supplement Agreement Within 60 days of receipt (PSA) to Caltrans in accordance with Caltrans Local Assistance procedures. The agency must contact Caltrans if the of the PSA from PSA is not received from Caltrans within 60 days of the obligation. This requirement does not apply to FTA Caltrans, and within six transfers. Agencies that do not execute and return the PSA to Caltrans within the required Caltrans deadline will be months from the actual unable to obtain future approvals for any projects, including obligation and payments, until all PSAs for that agency, obligation date. 2 regardless of fund source, meet the PSA execution requirement. Funds for projects that do not have an executed PSA within the required Caltrans deadline are subject to de-obligation by Caltrans.”

7 Advertise Contract /Award Contract/Award into FTA Grant Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “For the Construction (CON) phase, the construction/equipment purchase Advertised within 6 contract must be advertised within 6 months of obligation and awarded within 9 months of obligation. However, months of obligation and regardless of the advertisement and award deadlines, agencies must still meet the invoicing deadline for construction awarded within 9 months funds. Failure to advertise and award a contract in a timely manner could result in missing the subsequent invoicing of obligation. and reimbursement deadline, resulting in the loss of funding. Agencies must submit the notice of award to Caltrans in accordance with Caltrans Local Assistance procedures, with a copy also submitted to the applicable CMA. Agencies FTA Grant Award: with projects that do not meet these award deadlines will have future programming and OA restricted until their Within 1 year of transfer projects are brought into compliance. For FTA projects, funds must be approved/ awarded in an FTA Grant within to FTA. one federal fiscal year following the federal fiscal year in which the funds were transferred to FTA.”

8 Submit First Invoice / Next Invoice Due Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “Funds for each federally funded (Environmental (ENV/ PA&ED), Preliminary For Con phase: Once Engineering (PE), Final Design (PS&E) and Right of Way (R/W) phase and for each federal program code within within 12 months of these phases, must be invoiced against at least once every six months following obligation. Funds that are not Obligation and then once invoiced at least once every 12 months are subject to de-obligation. There is no guarantee that funds will be available every 6 months to the project once de-obligated. Funds for the Construction (CON) phase, and for each federal program code within thereafter, for each the construction phase, must be invoiced and reimbursed against at least once within 12 months of the obligation, federal program code. and then invoiced at least once every 6-months there after. Funds that are not invoiced and reimbursed at least once every 12 months are subject to de-obligation by FHWA. There is no guarantee that funds will be available to the project once de-obligated. If a project does not have eligible For all other phases: expenses within a 6-month period, the agency must provide a written explanation to Caltrans Local Assistance for Once within 6 months that six-month period and submit an invoice as soon as practicable to avoid missing the 12-month invoicing and following Obligation and reimbursement deadline. Agencies with projects that have not been invoiced against and reimbursed within a 12- then once every 6 month period, regardless of federal fund source, will have restrictions placed on future programming and OA until months thereafter, for the project is properly invoiced. Funds that are not invoiced and reimbursed against at least once every 12 months are each phase and federal subject to de-obligation by FHWA.” program code.

Page B2 of B3

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 137 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix B Definitions of the Required Activities per Resolution 3606 (As revised July 23, 2008)

Index Definition Deadline 8a Inactive Projects Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “Most projects can be completed well within the state’s deadline for funding Funds must be invoiced liquidation or FHWA’s ten-year proceed-to-construction requirement. Yet it is viewed negatively by both FHWA and reimbursed against and the California Department of Finance for projects to remain inactive for more than twelve months. It is expected once every 12 months to that funds for completed phases will be invoiced immediately for the phase, and projects will be closed out within six remain active. months of the final project invoice. Funds that are not invoiced and reimbursed at least once every 12 months are subject to de-obligation by FHWA. There is no guarantee the funds will be available to the project once de- obligated.”

9 Liquidate Funds Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “Funds must be liquidated (fully expended, invoiced and reimbursed) within six Funds must be liquidated years of obligation. California Government Codes 16304.1 and 16304.3 places additional restrictions on the within six years of liquidation of federal funds. Generally, federal funds must be liquidated (fully expended, invoiced and reimbursed) obligation. within 6 state fiscal years following the fiscal year in which the funds were appropriated. Funds that miss the state’s liquidation/ reimbursement deadline will lose State Budget Authority and will be de-obligated if not re-appropriated by the State Legislature, or extended (for one year) in a Cooperative Work Agreement (CWA) with the California Department of Finance. This requirement does not apply to FTA transfers.”

10 Estimated Completion Date/Project Closeout Per MTC Resolution 3606-Revised, “Implementing Agencies must fully expend federal funds on a phase one year Est. Completion Date: prior to the estimated completion date provided to Caltrans. At the time of obligation, the implementing agency For each phase, fully must provide Caltrans with an estimated completion date for that project phase. Any un-reimbursed federal funds expend federal funds 1 remaining on the phase after the estimated completion date has passed, is subject to project funding adjustments by year prior to date FHWA. Projects must be properly closed out within six months of final project invoice. Projects must proceed to provided to Caltrans. construction within 10 years of federal authorization of the initial phase. Federal regulations require that federally funded projects proceed to construction within 10 years of initial federal authorization of any phase of the project.

Furthermore, if a project is canceled, or fails to proceed to construction in 10 years, FHWA will de-obligate any Project Close-out: remaining funds, and the agency is required to repay any reimbursed funds. If a project is canceled as a result of the Within 6 months of final environmental process, the agency does not have to repay reimbursed costs for the environmental activities. project invoice. However, if a project is canceled after the environmental process is complete, or a project does not proceed to construction within 10 years, the agency is required to repay all reimbursed federal funds. Agencies with projects that have not been closed out within 6 months of final invoice will have future programming and OA restricted until the project is closed out or brought back to good standing by providing written explanation to Caltrans Local Assistance, the applicable CMA and MTC.”

Notes: 1 Approval in the TIP: For administrative/ minor TIP Amendments it is the date of Caltrans approval. For formal TIP Amendments, it is the date of FHWA approval. 2 Per DOT letter from Caltrans Local Assistance to MPOs, regarding “Procedural Changes in Managing Obligations”, dated 9/15/05.

Page B3 of B3

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 138 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix C Date of Most Recent Invoice on Record at Alameda CTC Project Sponsors are required to submit an invoice at least once every six months following obligation for each phase for which federal funds have been obligated (per MTC Resolution 3606 - Revised 7/23/08), with the exception of the first invoice for the construction phase which must be submitted within 12 months following obligation. Funds that are not invoiced and reimbursed against at least once every 12 months are subject to de obligation by FHWA. Project Sponsors are requested to provide the Alameda CTC with copies of excerpts from invoices showing the invoice number, date, amount, and the signature of the agency representative (i.e. the Alameda CTC does not need copies of the entire invoice package). Date of Most Months1 Since Prog’d Recent Invoice Most Recent Index TIP ID/ Sponsor Amount Obligation on Record at Invoice on Project Source ($x 1,000) Phase FY Date CMA Record at CMA C1 ALA070042/ ACCMA CMAQ $6,979 PE 07/08 12/19/07 4/28/10 Note 2 I-880 SB HOV Lane STP $801 PE 09/10 9/21/10 3/18/11 2 C2 ALA010032/ ACCMA STP $7,262 Con 08/09 3/27/09 4/11/11 1 I-580 San Leandro Estudillo Noise Barrier C3 ALA050018/ ACCMA CMAQ $500 Con 06/07 5/22/08 9/7/10 8 Grand/MacArthur Bus Improvements C4 ALA030002/ Ala. County STP $3,900 R/W 04/05 6/29/05 11/26/07 Note 2 Vasco Road Safety Imps., Phase 1 $9,350 Con 07/08 6/20/08 5/27/10 12 C5 ALA050072/ Ala. County STP $83 PSE 06/07 6/26/07 5/6/10 Note 2 Castro Vly Blvd. Rehab - Foothill to Stanton $758 Con 08/09 7/23/09 5/6/10 12 C6 ALA070040/ Ala. County CMAQ $2,999 Con 08/09 6/17/09 6/23/10 11 Hampton Rd Streetscape Improvement C7 ALA050082/ Dublin CMAQ $2,587 Con 08/09 3/9/09 3/16/10 14 East Dublin BART Station Corridor Enhancements CMAQ $489 PE 06/07 4/12/07 3/16/10 Note 2 C8 ALA070037/Fremont CMAQ $1,570 Con 08/09 1/21/09 1/14/2010 16 Bay Street Streetscape and Parking Project C9 ALA070038/ Livermore CMAQ $140 PE 07/08 11/16/07 5/10/10 Note 2 Downtown Ped Transit Connection $1,060 Con 08/09 3/30/09 5/10/10 12 C10 ALA070059/ Livermore CMAQ $845 Con 08/09 4/8/09 7/26/10 10 Downtown Pedestrian Improvements C11 ALA050021/ Oakland STP $825 Con 05/06 6/21/06 9/23/10 8 Oakland Street Resurfacing Program C12 ALA050023/ Oakland STP $1,573 Con 05/06 6/21/06 6/9/10 Note 2 Rehabilitation on Various Streets STP $2,486 Con 07/08 4/11/08 6/9/10 11 C13 ALA050039/ Oakland CMAQ $200 PE 05/06 3/30/06 2/26/10 Note 2 MacArthur Transit Hub Imps CMAQ $996 Con 06/07 3/20/07 10/12/10 7 C14 ALA050080/ Oakland CMAQ $320 PE 07/08 11/5/07 04/02/10 13 7th St., W. Oakland Transit Villiage Imps. STP $2,330 Con 08/09 8/5/09 6/15/10 11 ARRA $1,300 Con 8/5/09 6/15/10 11 C15 ALA070011 Oakland CMAQ $1,230 Con 08/09 3/30/09 4/25/11 1 66th Ave. Streetscape Improvement Project C16 ALA070027 Oakland CMAQ $770 Con 06/07 3/19/07 7/16/10 10 W. Oakland Bay Trail: Mandela Pkwy C17 ALA070039 Oakland CMAQ $899 Con 07/08 4/16/08 9/22/10 8 Oakland Waterfront Bay Trail

Page C1 of C2

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 139 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally Funded - Locally Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix C Date of Most Recent Invoice on Record at Alameda CTC Project Sponsors are required to submit an invoice at least once every six months following obligation for each phase for which federal funds have been obligated (per MTC Resolution 3606 - Revised 7/23/08), with the exception of the first invoice for the construction phase which must be submitted within 12 months following obligation. Funds that are not invoiced and reimbursed against at least once every 12 months are subject to de-obligation by FHWA. Project Sponsors are requested to provide the Alameda CTC with copies of excerpts from invoices showing the invoice number, date, amount, and the signature of the agency representative (i.e. the Alameda CTC does not need copies of the entire invoice package). Date of Most Months1 Since Prog’d Recent Invoice Most Recent Index TIP ID/ Sponsor Amount Obligation on Record at Invoice on Project Source ($x 1,000) Phase FY Date CMA Record at CMA C18 ALA050069/ San Leandro $49 PE 06/07 3/5/07 5/7/09 Note 2 Washington Ave Rehab - Creek to I-880 STP $442 Con 07/08 5/7/08 8/9/10 9 C19 ALA050078/ San Leandro CMAQ $750 Con 08/09 12/19/08 3/8/10 14 Bay Trail Bridge at Oyster Bay Slough C20 ALA070048/ San Leandro CMAQ $184 Con 07/08 4/2/08 12/13/10 5 San Leandro ATMS Upgrade C21 ALA050070/ Union City STP $5 PE 07/08 4/4/08 1/6/09 Note 2 Alvarado-Niles Pavement Rehabilitation STP $421 Con 08/09 1/21/09 9/14/2009 20

Notes: 1 Partial months are rounded up to full months ( i.e. 4 months and 1 day = 5 months). 2 The programmed amount for this phase has been fully invoiced. 3 Final Invoice submitted by Sponsor.

Page C2 of C2

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 140 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix D Projects with Liquidate Funds as the Next Required Activity Or with Funds Obligated for Transfer to FTA Most projects are completed in advance of the "Liquidate Funds" deadline which is six years following obligation. When Liquidate Funds becomes the next required activity being tracked by the Alameda CTC monitoring team, the monitoring team is dependent on the project sponsor to submit documentation when the project is complete. If the sponsor does not submit anything to the Alameda CTC when the project is completed, the monitoring program will track the project until the Liquidate Funds deadline. In order to keep the number of projects in the "Zone" sections of the report to a minimum, projects for which Liquidate Funds is the next required activity will be moved to Appendix D. If the project monitoring team receives documentation that the project has been closed out in the federal aid system, the project will be shown as completed in the next report and then removed from the report in subsequent reports. If the project monitoring team does not recieve any documentation about project closeout, the Liquidate Funds requirement will move the project into the Yellow Zone and subsequently the Red Zone in accordance with Appendix A. Projects with funds obligated for transfer to FTA are treated in a similar fashion, however the project monitoring team does not track activities required by FTA Grant Agreements. Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes ($x 1,000) Req’d By D1 ALA010034 AC Transit Maintenance Facilities Upgrade STP $4,000 Con 07/08 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D2 ALA010063 AC Transit Acquire 416 Bus Catalyst Devices CMAQ $68 Con 04/05 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D3 ALA050017 AC Transit Enhanced Bus - Telegraph/Int'l/East 14th CMAQ $35,000 Con 08/09 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D4 ALA070047 AC Transit Travel Choice -Berkeley CMAQ $216 Con 07/08 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D5 ALA070055 AC Transit Bike Racks for New Buses CMAQ $100 Con 07/08 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D6 ALA010032 ACCMA I-580 San Leandro Estudillo Noise Barrier STP $7,262 Con 08/09 Liquidate funds 03/27/15 G $7,262 Obligated 3/27/09 Contract Awd 5/28/09 D7 ALA050018 ACCMA Grand/MacArthur Bus Improvements CMAQ $500 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 05/22/14 G $500 Obligated 5/22/08 D8 ALA050036 ACCMA SMART Corridors Operations & Management CMAQ $283 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 01/27/15 G $283 Obligated 1/27/09 STP $135 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 09/07/12 G $135 Obligated 9/7/06 CMAQ $518 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 07/03/14 G $518 Obligated 7/3/08 D9 ALA070020 ACCMA I-580 (Tri-Valley) Corridor - EB HOV/HOT Lanes I-580 EB HOT Conversion ARRA $7,500 PE Liquidate Funds 11/27/15 G Contract Awarded 3/25/10 $7.5M Obligated 11/27/09 System Integrator in PE2 I-580 EB HOV/HOT Lanes CMAQ $6,161 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 04/09/15 G $6,161 Obligated 12/19/08 Funds De-Obligated 2/4/09 Re-Obligated 4/9/09 Caltrans Adminstering Funds

Page D1 of D6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 141 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix D (cont.) Projects with Liquidate Funds as the Next Required Activity Or with Funds Obligated for Transfer to FTA Most projects are completed in advance of the "Liquidate Funds" deadline which is six years following obligation. When Liquidate Funds becomes the next required activity being tracked by the Alameda CTC monitoring team, the monitoring team is dependent on the project sponsor to submit documentation when the project is complete. If the sponsor does not submit anything to the Alameda CTC when the project is completed, the monitoring program will track the project until the Liquidate Funds deadline. In order to keep the number of projects in the "Zone" sections of the report to a minimum, projects for which Liquidate Funds is the next required activity will be moved to Appendix D. If the project monitoring team receives documentation that the project has been closed out in the federal aid system, the project will be shown as completed in the next report and then removed from the report in subsequent reports. If the project monitoring team does not recieve any documentation about project closeout, the Liquidate Funds requirement will move the project into the Yellow Zone and subsequently the Red Zone in accordance with Appendix A Projects with funds obligated for transfer to FTA are treated in a similar fashion, however the project monitoring team does not track activities required by FTA Grant Agreements. Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes ($x 1,000) Req’d By D10 ALA070041 ACCMA I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility CMAQ $3,243 PE 07/08 Liquidate funds 07/10/14 G $3,243 Obligated 7/10/08 D11 ALA070042 ACCMA I-880 SB HOV Lanes -Marina to Hegenberger CMAQ $6,979 PE 07/08 Liquidate funds 12/19/13 G $4M obligated 12/19/07 08/09 STP to CMAQ 4/18/08 $2.781M added 4/15/09 $198 of STP to CMAQ CMAQ $801 PE 09/10 Liquidate funds 12/19/13 G $801 Obligated 9/21/10 D12 ALA050009 ACTIA I-580 Castro Valley Interchange Improvements STP $1,000 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 04/28/14 G $1,000 Obligated 4/28/08 D13 ALA070025 Alameda City of Alameda Signal Coordination CMAQ $59 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 05/31/13 G $59 Obligated 5/31/07 Force Account D14 ALA070049 Alameda Signal Coordination: 8th St, Otis Dr., & Park St. CMAQ $138 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 04/18/14 G $138 Obligated 4/18/08 D15 ALA030002 Ala County Vasco Road Safety Imps. Phase 1 STP $9,350 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 06/20/14 G $9,350 Obligated 6/20/08 G Contract Awarded 7/29/08 STP $3,900 R/W 04/05 Liquidate Funds 06/29/11 $3,900 Obligated 6/29/05 R/W Phase drawn down D16 ALA050072 Ala County Castro Valley Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation -Foothill Blvd. to Stanton Ave. STP $758 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 07/23/15 G $758 Obligated 7/23/09 G advertised 8/7/09 STP $83 PSE 06/07 Liquidate Funds 06/26/13 G $83 Obligated 6/26/07 D17 ALA070040 Ala County Hampton Rd Streetscape Improvement CMAQ $2,999 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 06/17/15 G $2,999 Obligated 6/17/09 G

Page D2 of D6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 142 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix D (cont.) Projects with Liquidate Funds as the Next Required Activity Or with Funds Obligated for Transfer to FTA Most projects are completed in advance of the "Liquidate Funds" deadline which is six years following obligation. When Liquidate Funds becomes the next required activity being tracked by the Alameda CTC monitoring team, the monitoring team is dependent on the project sponsor to submit documentation when the project is complete. If the sponsor does not submit anything to the Alameda CTC when the project is completed, the monitoring program will track the project until the Liquidate Funds deadline. In order to keep the number of projects in the "Zone" sections of the report to a minimum, projects for which Liquidate Funds is the next required activity will be moved to Appendix D. If the project monitoring team receives documentation that the project has been closed out in the federal aid system, the project will be shown as completed in the next report and then removed from the report in subsequent reports. If the project monitoring team does not recieve any documentation about project closeout, the Liquidate Funds requirement will move the project into the Yellow Zone and subsequently the Red Zone in accordance with Appendix A. Projects with funds obligated for transfer to FTA are treated in a similar fashion, however the project monitoring team does not track activities required by FTA Grant Agreements. Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes ($x 1,000) Req’d By D18 ALA050065 BART Ed Roberts Campus CMAQ $2,000 Con 07/08 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant 8/1/08 D19 ALA070034 BART Ashby BART Station / Ed Roberts Campus CMAQ $1,386 Con 08/09 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant 8/1/08 D20 ALA070051 BART BART Station Electronic Bike Lockers, Phase 2 CMAQ $130 Con 08/09 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant 7/14/09 D21 ALA050073 Berkeley University Ave Reconstruction STP $630 Con 08/09 Liquidate funds 02/05/15 NA Final Invoiced Paid 3/22/10 G D22 ALA050059 Caltrans SR 13 Median Landscaping STP $500 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 05/15/13 G $400 Obligated 5/15/07 G STP $100 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 01/13/15 G $100 Obligated 1/13/09 D23 ALA050082 Dublin East Dublin BART Station Corridor Enhancements CMAQ $2,587 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 03/09/15 G Contract Awarded 5/19/09 G $2,587 Obligated 3/9/09 Combined w/ALA050083 CMAQ $489 PE 06/07 Liquidate Funds 04/12/13 G $489 Obligated 4/12/07 D24 ALA050022 Fremont Rehab on Various Sts STP $2,172 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 06/13/12 G $2,172 Obligated 6/13/06 STP $2,850 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 05/30/13 G $2,850 Obligated 5/30/07 D25 ALA070037 Fremont Bay Street Streetscape and Parking Project CMAQ $1,570 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 01/21/15 G $1,570 Obligated 1/21/09 G D26 ALA070050 Fremont Mowry Ave Arterial Management CMAQ $419 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 09/15/14 G $419 Obligated 9/15/08 G D27 ALA050025 Hayward Hesperian Blvd Rehab STP $713 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 06/27/12 G $713 Obligated 6/27/06 STP $8 Env 05/06 Liquidate Funds 02/15/12 G $8 Obligated 2/15/06

Page D3 of D6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 143 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix D (cont.) Projects with Liquidate Funds as the Next Required Activity Or with Funds Obligated for Transfer to FTA Most projects are completed in advance of the "Liquidate Funds" deadline which is six years following obligation. When Liquidate Funds becomes the next required activity being tracked by the Alameda CTC monitoring team, the monitoring team is dependent on the project sponsor to submit documentation when the project is complete. If the sponsor does not submit anything to the Alameda CTC when the project is completed, the monitoring program will track the project until the Liquidate Funds deadline. In order to keep the number of projects in the "Zone" sections of the report to a minimum, projects for which Liquidate Funds is the next required activity will be moved to Appendix D. If the project monitoring team receives documentation that the project has been closed out in the federal aid system, the project will be shown as completed in the next report and then removed from the report in subsequent reports. If the project monitoring team does not recieve any documentation about project closeout, the Liquidate Funds requirement will move the project into the Yellow Zone and subsequently the Red Zone in accordance with Appendix A Projects with funds obligated for transfer to FTA are treated in a similar fashion, however the project monitoring team does not track activities required by FTA Grant Agreements. Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes ($x 1,000) Req’d By D28 ALA050056 Hayward West A Street Rehab STP $117 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 06/27/12 G $117 Obligated 6/27/06 STP $5 Env 05/06 Liquidate Funds 02/15/12 G $5 Obligated 2/15/06 D29 ALA050071 Hayward Rehab on Various Streets (Arterial Pavement Rehab) STP $776 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 03/26/14 G $835 Obligated 3/26/08 G STP $104 PE 06/07 Liquidate Funds 04/03/13 G $104 Obligated 4/3/07 E-76 Rev to $45 3/26/08 D30 ALA030015 LAVTA Acquire 25 Bus Catalyst Devices CMAQ $175 Con 04/05 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D31 ALA030017 LAVTA Exp. Bus –Route 70 & Subscript. Routes CMAQ $89 Con 04/05 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D32 ALA070028 LAVTA ACE Station Shuttle Services CMAQ $88 Con 06/07 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D33 ALA070029 LAVTA E. Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station Shuttle CMAQ $102 Con 06/07 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant D34 ALA050054 Livermore East Ave Rehab (Hillcrest to Loyola) STP $158 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 05/01/12 G $158 Obligated 5/1/06 D35 ALA050024 Livermore South Vasco Rd Rehab STP $300 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 05/01/12 G $300 Obligated 5/1/06 D36 ALA050068 Livermore Murrieta Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation STP $486 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 04/27/13 G Final Invoice Sub'd 1/17/07 D37 ALA070038 Livermore Downtown Livermore Ped Transit Connection CMAQ $1,060 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 03/30/15 G $888 Obligated 3/30/09 Contract Awarded 7/13/09 CMAQ $140 PE 07/08 Liquidate Funds 11/16/13 G $140 obligated 11/16/07

Page D4 of D6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 144 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix D (cont.) Projects with Liquidate Funds as the Next Required Activity Or with Funds Obligated for Transfer to FTA Most projects are completed in advance of the "Liquidate Funds" deadline which is six years following obligation. When Liquidate Funds becomes the next required activity being tracked by the Alameda CTC monitoring team, the monitoring team is dependent on the project sponsor to submit documentation when the project is complete. If the sponsor does not submit anything to the Alameda CTC when the project is completed, the monitoring program will track the project until the Liquidate Funds deadline. In order to keep the number of projects in the "Zone" sections of the report to a minimum, projects for which Liquidate Funds is the next required activity will be moved to Appendix D. If the project monitoring team receives documentation that the project has been closed out in the federal aid system, the project will be shown as completed in the next report and then removed from the report in subsequent reports. If the project monitoring team does not recieve any documentation about project closeout, the Liquidate Funds requirement will move the project into the Yellow Zone and subsequently the Red Zone in accordance with Appendix A. Projects with funds obligated for transfer to FTA are treated in a similar fashion, however the project monitoring team does not track activities required by FTA Grant Agreements. Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes ($x 1,000) Req’d By D38 ALA070059 Livermore Downtown Pedestrian Improvements CMAQ $845 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 04/08/15 G $845 Obligated 4/8/09 Contract Awd 10/12/09 D39 ALA010021 Oakland City of Oakland Street Resurfacing Program STP $825 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 06/21/12 G $825 Obligated 6/21/06 D40 ALA030007 Oakland Coliseum Transit Hub (San Leandro St. btwn 73rd & 66th Ave) $89 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 01/17/13 G $89K Obligated 1/17/07 CE determination 5/26/04 D41 ALA050023 Oakland Rehab on Various Sts STP $2,486 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 04/11/14 G $2,486 Obligated 4/11/08 G Contract Awd 1/6/09 STP $1,573 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 06/21/12 G $1,573 Obligated 6/21/06 D42 ALA050039 Oakland MacArthur Transit Hub Improvement Project CMAQ $996 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 03/30/13 G $681 Obligated 3/30/07 G 07/08 $215 Obligated 9/5/07 $100 Obligated 6/11/08 CMAQ $200 PE 05/06 Liquidate Funds 03/30/12 G $200 Obligated 3/30/06 D43 ALA050080 Oakland 7th St, W. Oakland Transit Village Imps ARRA-TE $1,300 Con $1,300 Obligated 8/5/09 G STP $2,330 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 08/05/15 G $2,330 Obligated 1/21/09 Re-Obligated 8/5/09 Liquidate Funds 08/05/15 G Contract Awarded 12/8/09 CMAQ $320 PE 07/08 Liquidate Funds 11/05/13 G $320 Obligated 11/5/07 D44 ALA070011 Oakland 66th Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project CMAQ $1,230 Con 08/09 Liquidate Funds 03/30/15 G $1,230 Obligated 3/30/09 D45 ALA070027 Oakland W. Oakland Bay Trail: Mandela Pkwy & 8th Street CMAQ $770 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 03/19/13 G $770 Obligated 3/19/07

Page D5 of D6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 145 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.2 Attachment A

Federal At Risk Report Status Date: April 30, 2011 Federally-Funded Locally-Sponsored Alameda County Projects

Appendix D (cont.) Projects with Liquidate Funds as the Next Required Activity Or with Funds Obligated for Transfer to FTA Most projects are completed in advance of the "Liquidate Funds" deadline which is six years following obligation. When Liquidate Funds becomes the next required activity being tracked by the Alameda CTC monitoring team, the monitoring team is dependent on the project sponsor to submit documentation when the project is complete. If the sponsor does not submit anything to the Alameda CTC when the project is completed, the monitoring program will track the project until the Liquidate Funds deadline. In order to keep the number of projects in the "Zone" sections of the report to a minimum, projects for which Liquidate Funds is the next required activity will be moved to Appendix D. If the project monitoring team receives documentation that the project has been closed out in the federal aid system, the project will be shown as completed in the next report and then removed from the report in subsequent reports. If the project monitoring team does not recieve any documentation about project closeout, the Liquidate Funds requirement will move the project into the Yellow Zone and subsequently the Red Zone in accordance with Appendix A. Projects with funds obligated for transfer to FTA are treated in a similar fashion, however the project monitoring team does not track activities required by FTA Grant Agreements. Index TIP ID Sponsor Project Title Source Prog’d Amount Phase FY Req’d Activity Date Zone Notes ($x 1,000) Req’d By D46 ALA070039 Oakland Oakland Waterfront Bay Trail CMAQ $899 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 04/16/14 G $599 Obligated 4/16/08 $300 Obligated 7/11/08 D47 ALA050026 San Leandro Washington Ave Rehab STP $445 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 03/24/12 G $455 Obligated 3/24/06 D48 ALA050055 San Leandro Floresta Blvd Street Rehab STP $185 Con 05/06 Liquidate Funds 03/24/12 G $185 Obligated 3/24/06 D49 ALA070030 San Leandro Traffic Signal System Improvements CMAQ $100 Con 06/07 Liquidate Funds 04/30/13 G $100 Obligated 4/30/07 D50 ALA050069 San Leandro Washington Ave Rehab -San Lorenzo Creek to I-880 O/C STP $442 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 05/07/14 G $442 Obligated 5/7/08 STP $49 PE 06/07 Liquidate Funds 03/05/13 G $49 Obligated 3/5/07 D51 ALA050078 San Leandro Bay Trail Bridge at Oyster Bay Slough CMAQ $750 Con 08/09 Liquidate funds 12/19/14 G $750 Obligated 12/19/08

D52 ALA070048 San Leandro San Leandro ATMS Upgrade CMAQ $184 Con 07/08 Liquidate Funds 04/02/14 G $184 Obligated 4/2/08 Force Account D53 ALA990015 Union City UC Intermodal Station CMAQ $124 Con 07/08 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant 2/6/08 CMAQ $1,702 Con 07/08 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant 1/25/08 CMAQ $3,024 Con 05/06 Obligated for Transfer to FTA Grant 7/10/06

Page D6 of D6

Alameda CTC Project Monitoring

Page 146 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.3

Memorandum

DATE: April 22, 2011

TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC)

FROM: Matt Todd, Manager of Programming

SUBJECT: Approval of CMA Exchange Program Quarterly Status Report

Recommendation: It is recommended the Alameda CTC Board approve the CMA Exchange Program Quarterly Status Report, dated April 30, 2011.

Information: The CMA Exchange Program provides funding for the projects programmed in the CMA Transportation Improvement Program (CMATIP), a local fund source administered by the Alameda CTC. The report contains a listing of all of the projects in the CMA Exchange Program, along with the current status of each exchange.

Since the January 2011 Status Report, a total of $3,796,701 in exchange revenue has been received from the following exchanges:

1) $2,147,545 from ACTIA I-580 Castro Valley Interchange Improvements (CMA Exchanges 16 & 17). 2) $1,649,156 from the AC Transit Bus Component Rehab (CMA Exchange 15).

Attachments: Attachment A – CMA Exchange Program Quarterly Status Report

Page 147 CMA Exchange Projects - Quarterly Status Report Status Date: April 30, 2011

CMA Exchange Amount Rec'd Amount Estimated Exchange Exchange Agreement Index Sponsor Project Fund (as of Remaining Payback Date Notes Project Amount Status 1 Source 4/14/2011) (to be rec'd) (full amount) Number

1 Ex 1 AC Transit Bus Rehabilitation STIP-RIP $ 20,182,514 $ 20,182,514 $ - Done E

2 EX 2 AC Transit Bus Component Rehab STP $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ - Done E

3 Ex 3 AC Transit Bus Component Rehab STIP-RIP $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ - Done E

4 Ex 15 AC Transit Bus Rehabilitation STIP-RIP $ 6,378,000 $ 6,378,000 $ - Done E

5 Ex 18 Ala. County Vasco Rd. Safety Improvements STP $ 7,531,000 $ 7,531,000 12/31/15 D

6 Ex 19 Ala. County ARRA LSR Project ARRA $ 1,503,850 $ 1,503,850 12/31/10 D

7 Ex 16 ACTIA I-580 Castro Valley I/C Imps STP $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - 12/31/10 E

8 Ex 17 ACTIA I-580 Castro Valley I/C Imps STIP-RIP $ 1,300,000 $ 1,147,545 $ 152,455 12/31/10 E

9 Ex 4 BART Seismic Retrofit STIP-RIP $ 8,100,000 $ 8,100,000 $ - Done E

10 Ex 5 Berkeley Street Resurfacing STP $ 259,560 $ 259,560 $ - Done E

11 Ex 6 Dublin Tassajara Interchange STIP-RIP $ 4,230,000 $ 4,230,000 $ - Done E

12 Ex 7 Fremont Street Rehabilitation STIP-RIP $ 2,196,900 $ 2,196,900 $ - Done E

13 Ex 8 Fremont Street Resurfacing STP $ 858,000 $ 858,000 $ - Done E ACTAC

14 Ex 14 Fremont Street Overlay -13 Segments STP $ 1,126,206 $ 1,126,206 $ - Done E

15 Ex 20 Fremont ARRA LSR Project ARRA $ 1,802,150 $ 1,802,150 $ - Done E Agenda Meeting

16 Ex 9 Livermore Isabel Interchange STIP-RIP $ 3,600,000 $ 3,600,000 $ - Done E

17 Ex 10 MTC East Dublin County BART STP $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ - Done E Item 05/03/11 18 Ex 11 Union City UC Intermodal Station STIP-RIP $ 9,314,000 $ 1,813,153 $ 7,500,847 12/31/10 E Page 4.6.3 Totals: $ 78,632,180 $ 61,944,028 $ 16,688,152 Notes: 1 E = Agreement Executed

148 A = Agreement Amendment in Process D = Agreement Draft Form N = Agreement Not Initiated

ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.4

Memorandum

DATE: April 22, 2011

TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC)

FROM: Jacki Taylor, Programming Liaison

SUBJECT: Approval of Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program At Risk Report

Recommendation: It is recommended the Alameda CTC Board approve the TFCA At Risk Report, dated April 30, 2011.

Summary: The report includes currently active and recently completed projects programmed with Alameda County TFCA Program Manager funds. The report segregates the active projects into “Red”, “Yellow”, and “Green” zones based on upcoming project delivery milestones. For this reporting cycle, all projects are in the report’s “Green Zone”.

Information: The report includes currently active and recently completed projects programmed with Alameda County TFCA Program Manager funds. The report segregates the active projects into “Red”, “Yellow”, and “Green” zones based on upcoming project delivery milestones. For this reporting cycle, all 25 active projects are listed under the report’s “Green Zone” and do not have required activities due for eight months or more. There are no “Red” or “Yellow” Zone projects for this report. As noted at the end of the report, LAVTA’s Route 10 Transit Signal Priority project, 08ALA11, has been completed and will be removed from the next report.

Note that an estimated project start date is included under the “Date Due” column of the report, but it is not a true deadline, and as such does not have a zone of risk associated with it. Actual start dates are added to the report as they are provided by the project sponsor.

A request for project status information for use in the Alameda CTC’s TFCA semi-annual report was distributed to TFCA sponsors on April 12th and responses were requested by April 28th. Any responses remaining to be received as of May 3rd will be noted at the meeting.

Attachments: Attachment A – TFCA Program Manager Fund At Risk Report

Page 149 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.4 TFCA County Program Manager Fund Attachment A At Risk Report Report Date: April 30, 2011

Activity Project Required Date Completed No. Sponsor Project Title Balances Activity Due (Date or Y/N) Notes GREEN ZONE (Milestone deadline beyond 7 months) 07ALA06 BART Multi-Jurisdiction Bike TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/1/08 3/8/08 Expenditures not complete Locker Project Expenditure deadline Dec '11 $ 275,405.00 Project Start 2/1/08 Feb-08 (2nd extension appv'd TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/12 10/28/10) $ - FMR Mar-12 FMR Due Mar '12 Expend Deadline Met? 12/22/11 08ALA01 ACCMA Webster Street Corridor TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/8/09 12/16/08 Expenditures not complete Enhancements Project Expenditure deadline Dec '11 $ 420,000.00 Project Start Jan-09 Jun-09 (Extension approved TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/12 10/28/10) $ 229,015.97 FMR Mar-12 FMR Due Mar '12 Expend Deadline Met? 12/22/11 08ALA02 BART Castro Valley BART TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/31/09 2/12/09 Expenditures not complete Station Bicycle Lockers Expenditure deadline Dec '11 $ 66,500.00 Project Start Jan-09 Jan-09 (Extension approved TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/12 10/28/10) $ - FMR Mar-12 FMR Due Mar '12 Expend Deadline Met? 12/22/11 08ALA03 Berkeley 9th Street Bicycle TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/8/09 1/14/09 Expenditures not complete Boulevard Expenditure deadline Dec '11 $ 247,316.00 Project Start Jan-09 Jan-09 (Extension approved TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/12 10/28/10) $ - FMR Mar-12 FMR Due Mar '12 Expend Deadline Met? 12/22/11 08ALA05 ACCMA Oakland San Pablo TFCA Award Agreement Executed NA 8/22/08 Expenditure deadline Dec '10 Avenue TSP/Transit Expenditures complete $ 174,493.00 Project Start Apr-09 Jul-09 Improvement Project Final Invoice received Jan'11 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/11 FMR Due Feb '13 $ 149,650.83 FMR Feb-13 (2-year post-project reporting Expend Deadline Met? 12/22/10 Yes required) 09ALA01 ACCMA Webster St SMART TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/7/10 7/7/09 Expenditures not complete Corridors Expenditure deadline Jan '12 $ 400,000.00 Project Start Oct-09 Jul-09 FMR Due Mar '12 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ 192,093.98 FMR Mar-12 Expend Deadline Met? 01/13/12 09ALA02 Alameda Fairmont Campus to TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/7/10 1/5/10 Expenditures not complete County BART Shuttle Expenditure deadline Jan '12 $ 170,000.00 Project Start Mar-10 Apr-10 (FY 09/10) FMR Due Mar '12 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ 141,876.00 FMR Mar-12 Expend Deadline Met? 01/13/12 09ALA04 Berkeley Citywide Bicycle Parking TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/7/10 1/5/10 Expenditures not complete Program Expenditure deadline Jan '12 $ 46,887.00 Project Start Mar-10 Jul-10 FMR Due Mar '12 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Mar-12 Expend Deadline Met? 01/13/12 09ALA05 Fremont South Fremont Arterial TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/7/10 12/03/09 Expenditures not complete Management Expenditure deadline Jan '12 $ 232,000.00 Project Start Jan-10 Nov-09 FMR Due Mar '12 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ 155,075.95 FMR Mar-12 Expend Deadline Met? 01/13/12 09ALA07 AC Transit Easy Pass Transit TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/7/10 12/03/09 Expenditures not complete Incentive Program Expenditure deadline Jan '12 $ 350,000.00 Project Start Sep-09 Nov '09 FMR Due Mar '12 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Mar-12 Expend Deadline Met? 01/13/12 09ALA08 ACCMA Guaranteed Ride Home TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/7/10 7/7/09 Expenditures not complete Program Expenditure deadline Jan '12 $ 280,000.00 Project Start Nov-09 Nov-09 (FYs 09/10 & 10/11) FMR Due Mar '12 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Mar-12 Expend Deadline Met? 01/13/12

Page 1 of 3 Page 150 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.4 TFCA County Program Manager Fund Attachment A At Risk Report Report Date: April 30, 2011

Activity Project Required Date Completed No. Sponsor Project Title Balances Activity Due (Date or Y/N) Notes GREEN ZONE (Milestone deadline beyond 7 months), continued 09ALA10 ACCMA Bike to Work Day TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/7/10 7/7/09 Expenditures not complete Marketing and Survey Expenditure deadline Jan '12 $ 96,000.00 Project Start Mar-10 Mar-10 FMR Due Mar '12 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Mar-12 Expend Deadline Met? 01/13/12 10ALA01 Alameda Fairmont Campus to TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 02/08/11 Expenditures not complete County BART Shuttle Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 110,000.00 Project Start Mar-11 (FY 10/11) FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA02 Alameda CTC I-80 Corridor Arterial TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 07/09/10 Expenditures not complete Management Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 100,000.00 Project Start Mar-11 FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA03 Fremont Signal Retiming: Paseo TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 02/24/11 Expenditures not complete Padre parkway and Auto Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 210,000.00 Project Start Mar-11 Mall Parkway FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA04 Hayward Traffic Signal Controller TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 01/26/11 Expenditures not complete Upgrade and Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 614,000.00 Project Start Mar-11 Synchronization FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA05 Oakland Broadway Shuttle - TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 01/21/11 Expenditures not complete Extended Service Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 166,880.00 Project Start Mar-11 FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA06 Oakland Webster/Franklin TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 01/20/11 Expenditures not complete Bikeway Project Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 90,000.00 Project Start Mar-11 FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA07 Pleasanton Pleasanton Trip TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 01/05/11 Expenditures not complete Reduction Program Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 52,000.00 Project Start Mar-11 (FY 10/11) FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA08 AC Transit TravelChoice- TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 01/05/11 Expenditures not complete New Residents (TCNR) Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 165,000.00 Project Start Mar-11 FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ 2,583.00 FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA09 LAVTA BART to Downtown TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 12/15/10 Expenditures not complete Pleasanton - Route 8 Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 96,860.00 Project Start Mar-11 (FY 10/11) FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA10 LAVTA BART/Hacienda TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 12/15/10 Expenditures not complete Business Park Shuttle - Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 60,380.00 Project Start Mar-11 Route 9 FMR Due Jan '13 (FY 10/11) TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ 37,406.46 FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12

Page 2 of 3 Page 151 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 4.6.4 TFCA County Program Manager Fund Attachment A At Risk Report Report Date: April 30, 2011

Activity Project Required Date Completed No. Sponsor Project Title Balances Activity Due (Date or Y/N) Notes GREEN ZONE (Milestone deadline beyond 7 months), continued 10ALA11 LAVTA ACE Shuttle Service - TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 12/15/10 Expenditures not complete Route 53 Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 70,677.00 Project Start Mar-11 (FYs 10/11 & 11/12) FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ 20,182.89 FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA12 LAVTA ACE/BART Shuttle TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 12/15/10 Expenditures not complete Service - Route 54 Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 72,299.00 Project Start Mar-11 (FYs 10/11 & 11/12) FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ 20,859.93 FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 10ALA13 San Leandro San Leandro Links TFCA Award Agreement Executed 2/17/11 01/05/11 Expenditures not complete (FY 10/11) Expenditure deadline Oct '12 $ 66,605.00 Project Start Mar-11 FMR Due Jan '13 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/13 $ - FMR Jan-13 Expend Deadline Met? 10/28/12 Completed Projects (will be removed from the next monitoring report) 08ALA11 LAVTA Route 10 BRT TSP and TFCA Award Agreement Executed 1/8/09 11/19/08 Expenditure deadline Dec '10 Queue Jumper Expenditures complete $ 444,722.00 Project Start Jul-09 Jul-09 Improvements Final Invoice received Jan'11 TFCA Expended Final Reimbursement 12/31/11 Apr-11 FMR received April '11 $ 444,722.00 FMR Mar-11 Apr-11 Expend Deadline Met? 12/22/10 Yes Report Milestone Notes Agmt Executed = Date TFCA Agreement executed Project Start = Date of project initiation FMR = Date Final Monitoring Report received by CMA Exp. Deadline Met? = Expenditures completed by deadline (Yes/No)

Page 3 of 3 Page 152 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.2

Memorandum

DATE: April 25, 2011

TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC)

FROM: Beth Walukas, Deputy Director of Planning Tess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Policy and Legislation

SUBJECT: Review of Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS)/Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP)/ Transportation Expenditure Plan Information

Recommendation This item is for information only. No action is requested.

Summary This item provides information on regional and countywide transportation planning efforts related to the updates of the Countywide Transportation Plan and Sales Tax Transportation Expenditure Plan (CWTP-TEP) as well as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the development of the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS).

Discussion ACTAC; the Planning, Policy and Legislation Committee (PPLC); the Alameda CTC Board; the Citizen’s Watchdog Committee; the Paratransit Advisory and Planning Committee; the Citizen’s Advisory Committee; and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee receive monthly updates on the CWTP-TEP and RTP/SCS. The purpose of this report is to keep various Committee and Working Groups updated on regional and countywide planning activities, alert Committee members about issues and opportunities requiring input in the near term, and provide an opportunity for Committee feedback in a timely manner. CWTP-TEP Committee agendas and related documents are available on the Alameda CTC website. RTP/SCS related documents are available at www.onebayarea.org.

May 2011 Update: This report focuses on the month of May 2011. A summary of countywide and regional planning activities for the next three months is found in Attachment A and a three year schedule for the countywide and the regional processes is found in Attachment B and Attachment C respectively. Highlights include MTC/Alameda CTC Call for Projects and Programs, which is also covered earlier in the Agenda, and the process for moving from the recently released Initial Vision Scenario to the Alternative Scenarios that are scheduled to be released by ABAG in July.

1) MTC/ Alameda CTC Call for Projects and Programs

Page 153 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.2

The concurrent Call for Projects and Programs was released on February 25, 2011. Project/program applications were due to Alameda CTC by April 12, 2011. Approximately 300 project and program applications were received by the due date. These projects and programs were screened and a preliminary tiered list of CWTP and RTP projects and programs developed. A draft list of projects and programs recommended for inclusion in the RTP is due to MTC by April 29, 2011. The CWTP- TEP Steering Committee is anticipated to review the draft list at its meeting on April 28, 2011 and recommend that it be forwarded to MTC by the deadline. The Draft list of projects and programs will be presented to Alameda CTC committees and advisory groups in May culminating in a public hearing at the May 26, 2011 CWTP-TEP Steering Committee meeting with a recommendation for approval by the Commission on the same day. The final list is due to MTC on May 27, 2011. The draft list is being considered by ACTAC under a separate agenda item.

2) Release of Initial Vision Scenario and Development of Detailed Scenarios

On March 11, 2011, ABAG released the Initial Vision Scenario representing the starting point for discussion for how to house the region’s population and meet sustainability goals. The Initial Vision Scenario was presented to Alameda County elected officials at four meetings throughout the County between March 16 and March 24, 2011 and to the Technical Advisory Working Group, including the Alameda County Planning Directors, on March 18, 2011. ABAG and MTC are seeking input on the Initial Vision Scenario between now and June 2011 to use in the development of Alternative Land Use Scenarios, which are anticipated to be released in July 2011. In addition to providing input on the development of the Alternative Land Use Scenarios through the CWTP-TEP Committees, a public workshop, hosted by MTC and ABAG, is being scheduled on May 19 in Berkeley. Alameda CTC is working with Supervisorial Districts 1 and 2 to host a joint workshop on the SCS. The workshop is scheduled on May 14, 2011 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Sunol Golf Course.

3) RTP/SCS Work Element Proposals and

MTC continues to refine their proposals and guidance for the following work elements of the RTP/SCS: • 25-year financial forecasts; • Draft committed funds and projects policy scheduled to be adopted by MTC in April. Staff will provide a status update at the meeting; and • Transit capital, local streets and roads maintenance needs, and transit operation needs approach.

4) Upcoming Meetings Related to Countywide and Regional Planning Efforts:

Committee Regular Meeting Date and Time Next Meeting CWTP-TEP Steering Committee 4th Thursday of the month, noon April 28, 2011 Location: Alameda CTC May 26, 2011 No June Meeting CWTP-TEP Technical Advisory 2nd Thursday of the month, 1:30 p.m. May 12, 2011 Working Group Location: Alameda CTC No June Meeting CWTP-TEP Community Advisory 1st Thursday of the month, 3:00 p.m. May 5, 2011 Working Group Location: Alameda CTC No June Meeting

2 Page 154 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.2

Committee Regular Meeting Date and Time Next Meeting SCS/RTP Regional Advisory Working 1st Tuesday of the month, 9:30 a.m. May 3, 2011 Group Location: MetroCenter,Oakland June 7, 2011 SCS/RTP Equity Working Group Location: MetroCenter, Oakland May 11, 2011 June 8, 2011 SCS/RTP Housing Methodology 10 a.m. May 26, 2011 Committee Location: BCDC, 50 California St., June 23, 2011 26th Floor, San Francisco CWTP-TEP Public Workshops and Location and times vary Initial Vision Scenario Outreach District 1 and 2 SCS Workshop May 14, 2011 Initial Vision Scenario Public May 19, 2011 Meeting

Fiscal Impact None.

Attachments Attachment A: Summary of Next Quarter Countywide and Regional Planning Activities Attachment B: CWTP-TEP-RTP-SCS Development Implementation Schedule Attachment C: One Bay Area SCS Planning Process

3 Page 155 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.2

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 156 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.2

Attachment A

Summary of Next Quarter Countywide and Regional Planning Activities (May through July)

Countywide Planning Efforts The three year CWTP-TEP schedule showing countywide and regional planning milestone schedules is found in Attachment B. Major milestone dates are presented at the end of this memo. In the May to July time period, the CWTP-TEP Committees will be focusing on:

• Coordinating with ABAG and local jurisdictions to provide comments on the Initial Vision Scenario and to define the Alternative Land Use Scenarios for the Sustainable Communities Strategy; • Finalizing the issues papers that discuss challenges and opportunities regarding transportation needs in Alameda County, including a presentation of best practices and strategies for achieving Alameda County’s vision beyond this CWTP update; • Beginning the discussion on Transportation Expenditure Plan strategic parameters and funding scenarios; • Approving a list of projects and programs in response to the Call for Projects by MTC that will be further evaluated for the CWTP and the RTP; • Identifying and evaluating transportation investment packages against a Modified Future Land Use scenario; • Reviewing the results of the evaluation and identifying a constrained transportation network; • Developing countywide financial projections and opportunities that are consistent and concurrent with MTC’s financial projections; and • Developing a Locally Preferred SCS land use scenario to test with the constrained transportation network.

Regional Planning Efforts Staff continues to coordinate the CWTP-TEP with planning efforts at the regional level including the Regional Transportation Plan (MTC), the Sustainable Communities Strategy (ABAG), Climate Change Bay Plan and amendments (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)) and CEQA Guidelines (Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)).

In the three month period for which this report covers, MTC and ABAG are focusing on

• Receiving input on the Initial SCS Vision Scenario released March 11, 2011; • Developing the Alternative SCS Scenarios based on that input; • Conducting public outreach; • Developing draft financial projections; and • Conducting a performance assessment.

Staff will be coordinating with the regional agencies and providing feedback on these issues, through:

• Participating on the MTC/ABAG Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG), • Participating on regional Sub-committees (Equity sub-committee); and • Assisting in public outreach.

Page 157 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.2

Attachment A

Key Dates and Opportunities for Input The key dates shown below are indications of where input and comment are desired. The major activities and dates are highlighted below by activity:

Sustainable Communities Strategy: Presentation of SCS information to local jurisdictions: Completed Initial Vision Scenario Released: March 11, 2011: Completed Detailed SCS Scenarios Released: July 2011 Preferred SCS Scenario Released/Approved: December 2011/January 2012

RHNA RHNA Process Begins: January 2011 Draft RHNA Methodology Released: September 2011 Draft RHNA Plan released: February 2012 Final RHNA Plan released/Adopted: July 2012/October 2012

RTP Develop Financial Forecasts and Committed Funding Policy: March/April 2011 Call for RTP Transportation Projects: March 1 through April 29, 2011 Conduct Performance Assessment: March 2011 - September 2011 Transportation Policy Investment Dialogue: October 2011 – February 2012 Prepare SCS/RTP Plan: April 2012 – October 2012 Draft RTP/SCS for Released: November 2012 Prepare EIR: December 2012 – March 2013 Adopt SCS/RTP: April 2013

CWTP-TEP Develop Land Use Scenarios: May – July 2011 Call for Projects: Concurrent with MTC Outreach: January 2011 - June 2011 Draft List of CWTP constrained Projects and Programs: July 2011 First Draft CWTP: September 2011 TEP Program and Project Packages: September 2011 Draft CWTP and TEP Released: January 2012 Outreach: January 2012 – June 2012 Adopt CWTP and TEP: July 2012 TEP Submitted for Ballot: August 2012

2 Page 158 Countywide Transportation Plan and Transportation Expenditure Plan ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Preliminary Development Implementation Schedule - Updated 12/22/10 Agenda Item 5.2 Calendar Year 2010 Attachment B Meeting 2010 FY2010-2011 2010

Task January February March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec

Alameda CTC Committee/Public Process

Working meeting Approval of to establish roles/ RFP feedback, Update on Feedback from Establish Steering Community working Expand vision and Steering Committee responsibilities, tech working Transportation/ No Meetings Tech, comm No Meetings Committee group and steering goals for County ? community group Finance Issues working groups committee next steps working group

Roles, resp, Education: Trans schedule, vision Technical Advisory Working Group No Meetings No Meetings statistics, issues, discussion/ financials overview feedback

Roles, resp, Education: schedule, vision Transportation Community Advisory Working Group No Meetings No Meetings discussion/ statistics, issues, feedback financials overview

Stakeholder Public Participation No Meetings outreach

Agency Public Education and Outreach Information about upcoming CWTP Update and reauthorization Alameda CTC Technical Work ALF/ALC approves shortlist and Board Technical Studies/RFP/Work timelines: All this work will Proposals interview; Board authorization for Pre-Bid meetings Technical Work be done in relation to SCS work at the regional level reviewed approves top ranked, release of RFPs auth. to negotiate or NTP

Polling

Sustainable Communities Strategy/Regional Transportation Plan Local Land Use Update P2009 Green House Gas begins & PDA Target approved by Start Vision Scenario Discussions Assessment CARB. begins Regional Sustainable Community Strategy Development Process - Final RTP in April 2013 Adopt methodology for Jobs/Housing Forecast Projections 2011 (Statutory Target) Base Case Adopt Voluntary Performance Targets

Page 159 Countywide Transportation Plan and Transportation Expenditure Plan ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Preliminary Development Implementation Schedule - Updated 12/22/10 Agenda Item 5.2 Calendar Year 2011 Attachment B

2011 FY2011-2012 2011

Task January February March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec

Alameda CTC Committee/Public Process Review workshop Outreach update, Outreach and call 1st Draft CWTP, Adopt vision and outcomes, project and program for projects update Project evaluation TEP potential goals; begin transportation issue screening outcomes, Performance measures, (draft list approval), outcomes; outline of project and Meeting moved to Review 2nd draft discussion on papers, programs, call for projects final Steering Committee costs guidelines, call for project and program No Meetings. CWTP; TEP No Meetings program December due to CWTP; 1st draft performance finalize performance list to MTC, TEP projects and prioritization packaging, county Strategies for project packages, holiday conflict TEP measures, key process, approve polling measures, land use strategic land use, financials, and program selection outreach and needs questions, initial vision discussion, call for parameters, land committed projects polling discussion scenario discussion projects update use rcmmdn Review workshop Outreach update, 1st Draft CWTP, Comment on Continue discussion outcomes, Outreach and call project and program Project evaluation TEP potential vision and goals; on performance transportation issue for projects update, screening outcomes, Review 2nd draft outcomes; outline of project and begin discussion measures, costs papers, programs, project and program call for projects CWTP, 1st draft Technical Advisory Working Group No Meetings. CWTP; TEP No Meetings program No Meetings on performance guidelines, call for finalize performance packaging, county update, TEP TEP, poll results Strategies for project packages, measures, key projects, briefing book, measures, land use land use, financials, strategic update and program selection outreach and needs outreach discussion, call for committed projects parameters, land polling discussion projects update use Review workshop Outreach update, 1st Draft CWTP, Comment on Continue discussion outcomes, Outreach and call project and program Project evaluation TEP potential vision and goals; on performance transportation issue for projects update, screening outcomes, Review 2nd draft outcomes; outline of project and begin discussion measures, costs papers, programs, project and program call for projects CWTP, 1st draft Community Advisory Working Group No Meetings. CWTP; TEP No Meetings program No Meetings on performance guidelines, call for finalize performance packaging, county update, TEP TEP, poll results Strategies for project packages, measures, key projects, briefing book, measures, land use land use, financials, strategic update and program selection outreach and needs outreach discussion, call for committed projects parameters, land polling discussion projects update use Public Workshops in two areas of County: East County 2nd round of public workshops in Public Workshops in all areas of County: South County Public Participation vision and needs; Transportation No Meetings County: feedback on CWTP,TEP; No Meetings vision and needs Transportation Forum Central County Forum North County Transportation Forum Transportation Forum Agency Public Education and Outreach Ongoing Education and Outreach through November 2012 Ongoing Education and Outreach through November 2012 Alameda CTC Technical Work

Work with Technical Studies/RFP/Work timelines: All this work will feedback on Feedback on Technical Work, Modified Vision, Preliminary projects lists Technical work refinement and development of Expenditure plan, 2nd draft CWTP be done in relation to SCS work at the regional level CWTP and financial scenarios

Conduct baseline Polling on possible Polling Expenditure Plan poll projects & programs

Sustainable Communities Strategy/Regional Tran

Technical Analysis of SCS Scenarios; Release Initial Release Detailed SCS SCS Scenario Results/and funding Release Preferred Detailed SCS Scenario Development Adoption of Regional Housing Needs Vision Scenario Scenarios discussions SCS Scenario Allocation Methodology

Regional Sustainable Community Strategy Development Process - Final RTP in April 2013 Call for Transportation Projects and Draft Regional Housing Project Evaluation Project Performance Assessment Needs Allocation Discuss Call for Projects Methodoligy

Develop Draft 25-year Transportation Financial Forecasts and Committed Transportation Funding Policy

Page 160 Countywide Transportation Plan and Transportation Expenditure Plan ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Preliminary Development Implementation Schedule - Updated 12/22/10 Agenda Item 5.2 Calendar Year 2012 Attachment B

2012 FY2011-2012

Task January February March April May June July August Sept Oct November

Alameda CTC Committee/Public Process

Full Draft TEP, Expenditure Plan VOTE: Steering Committee Outcomes of outreach Finalize PlansMeetings to be determined as needed Adopt Draft Plans Adopt Final Plans on Ballot November 6, 2012 meetings

Full Draft TEP, VOTE: Technical Advisory Working Group Outcomes of outreach Finalize Plans Meetings to be determined as needed November 6, 2012 meetings

Full Draft TEP, VOTE: Community Advisory Working Group Outcomes of outreach Finalize Plans Meetings to be determined as needed November 6, 2012 meetings

VOTE: Public Participation Expenditure Plan City Council/BOS Adoption November 6, 2012

Agency Public Education and Outreach Ongoing Education and Outreach Through November 2012 on this process and final plans Ongoing Education and Outreach through November 2012 on this process and final plans Alameda CTC Technical Work

Technical Studies/RFP/Work timelines: All this work will Finalize Plans be done in relation to SCS work at the regional level

Potential Go/No Polling Go Poll for Expenditure Plan

Sustainable Communities Strategy/Regional Tran

Begin RTP Release Draft Approval of Preferred SCS, Release of Technical Analysis Prepare SCS/RTP Plan SCS/RTP for Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan & Document review Preparation Regional Sustainable Community Strategy Development Process - Final RTP in April 2013

Page 161 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.2 Attachment B

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 162 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.3

Memorandum

DATE: March 28, 2011

TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC)

FROM: Jacki Taylor, Programming Liaison

RE: Review Project Eligibility Categories for Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program

Recommendation: ACTAC is requested to review information regarding eligible project categories for the TFCA Program.

Summary: At the March 2011 Alameda CTC Programs and Projects Committee (PPC) and Board meetings, it was proposed that TFCA funding eligibility should be expanded to include Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects, specifically transit incentives such as bus passes. ACTAC is requested to review the overall TFCA project eligibility categories.

Information: Eligible TFCA projects are those defined in the provisions of the California Health and Safety code (HSC) section 44241. The HSC specifies that TFCA funds be used to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles through the implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and Mobile Source Measures (MSMs). The Bay area Air Quality Management District (Air District) also adopts policies and provides additional guidance. The Alameda CTC, as administrator of the Program Manager funds, also adopts Program Guidelines. These Alameda CTC Program Guidelines include a list of eligible project types based on the HSC and Air District guidance. Attachment A provides a comparison of how the project eligibility is detailed by the HSC, Air District and Alameda CTC.

Staff is aware that the Air District has funded TDM-related projects such as Guaranteed Ride Home and certain transit incentives and trip reduction programs in the past, even though they are not specifically detailed in the HSC. The Air District policies/guidance does not specify types of projects that have been funded in the past that are considered consistent with, but may not be specifically mentioned in, the HSC. This information could help prospective applicants identify projects that may be a good match for TFCA-funding. Alameda CTC can also consider providing a similar level of information in its Program Manager Guidelines.

Through this discussion, this is also an opportunity for ACTAC to suggest additional eligibility categories or specific project types for consideration for the TFCA Program.

Page 163 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.3

The Air District Guidance also includes a provision that, “On a case-by-case basis, Program Mangers must receive approval by the Air District for projects that are authorized by the HSC section 44241 and achieve Board-adopted TFCA cost-effectiveness, but do not fully meet other Board-adopted policies.” The Alameda CTC Guidelines could also incorporate the “case-by- case” language.

Next Steps: Based on today’s discussion staff will prepare a recommendation for ACTAC to consider at a future meeting. Depending on the revisions desired, the staff recommendations may range from administrative to proposed legislative changes.

Attachments: Attachment A: TFCA Eligible Projects in the HSC, Air District Guidance, and Alameda CTC Guidelines

Page 164

Matrix of TFCA Eligible Project Categories Health and Safety Code, Section 44241: BAAQMD FY 11/12 Guidance: Alameda CTC FY 11/12 Guidelines: 1 The implementation of ridesharing The implementation of ridesharing Implementation of rideshare programs. programs. programs. 2 The purchase or lease of clean fuel The purchase or lease of clean fuel Purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for buses for school districts and transit buses for school districts and transit school districts and transit operators. operators. operators. 3 The provision of local feeder bus or The provision of local feeder bus or Provision of local feeder bus or shuttle shuttle service to rail and ferry stations shuttle service to rail and ferry stations service to rail and ferry stations and to and to airports. and to airports. airports. 4 Implementation and maintenance of Implementation and maintenance of Implementation and maintenance of local local arterial traffic management, local arterial traffic management, arterial traffic management, including, but including, but not limited to, signal including, but not limited to, signal not limited to, signal timing, transit signal timing, transit signal preemption, bus timing, transit signal preemption, bus preemption, bus stop relocation and stop relocation and "smart streets." stop relocation and "smart streets. “smart streets”. 5 Implementation of rail-bus integration Implementation of rail-bus integration Implementation of rail-bus integration and and regional transit information and regional transit information regional transit information systems. systems. systems. 6 Implementation of demonstration Implementation of demonstration Implementation of demonstration projects projects in telecommuting and in projects in telecommuting and in in congestion pricing of highways, bridges congestion pricing of highways, bridges, congestion pricing of highways, and public transit; and in telecommuting. and public transit. No funds expended bridges, and public transit. No funds expended pursuant

pursuant to this paragraph for telecommuting projects shall be used for ACTAC telecommuting projects shall be used for the purchase of personal computing the purchase of personal computing equipment for an individual's home use.

equipment for an individual's home use. Meeting Agenda

7 Implementation of vehicle-based Implementation of vehicle-based Implementation of vehicle-based projects Attachment projects to reduce mobile source projects to reduce mobile source to reduce mobile source emissions, emissions, including, but not limited to, emissions, including, but not limited including, but not limited to light duty 05/03/11 engine repowers, engine retrofits, fleet to, engine repowers, engine retrofits, vehicles with a gross vehicle weight Item modernization, alternative fuels, and fleet modernization, alternative fuels, (GVW) of 10,000 pounds or lighter, Page

advanced technology demonstrations. and advanced technology engine repowers, engine retrofits, fleet 5.3 demonstrations. modernization, alternative fuels, and A

165 advanced technology demonstrations.

Page 1 of 2 Note: Engine repowers are subject to Air District approval on a case-by-case basis. 8 Implementation of a smoking vehicles Implementation of a smoking vehicles Implementation of smoking vehicles program. program. program. 9 Implementation of an automobile buy- Not eligible in BAAQMD FY 11/12 Removed from Alameda CTC FY 11/12 back scrappage program operated by a Guidance. Guidelines based on BAAQMD FY 11/12 governmental agency. Guidance. 10 Implementation of bicycle facility Implementation of bicycle facility Implementation of bicycle facility improvement projects that are included improvement projects that are improvement projects that are included in in an adopted countywide bicycle plan included in an adopted countywide an adopted countywide bicycle plan or or congestion management program. bicycle plan or congestion congestion management program. management program. 11 The design and construction by local The design and construction by local Design and construction by local public public agencies of physical public agencies of physical agencies of physical improvements that improvements that support development improvements that support support development projects that achieve projects that achieve motor vehicle development projects that achieve motor vehicle emission reductions. The emission reductions. The projects and motor vehicle emission reductions. projects and the physical improvements the physical improvements shall be The projects and the physical shall be identified in an approved area- identified in an approved area-specific improvements shall be identified in an specific plan, redevelopment plan, general plan, redevelopment plan, general plan, approved area-specific plan, plan, or other similar plan. or other similar plan. redevelopment plan, general plan, or other similar plan.

ACTAC Meeting Agenda Attachment 05/03/11 Item Page 5.3 A 166

Page 2 of 2 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.5

Memorandum

DATE: April 25, 2011

TO: Alameda County Technical Advisory Committee (ACTAC)

FROM: Vivek Bhat, Senior Transportation Engineer

RE: Review Federal Inactive Projects List: March 2011 Quarterly Review

Recommendations: This item is for information only. No action is requested.

Summary: ACTAC is requested to review the March 2011 Quarterly Federal Inactive obligation list of projects. Federal regulations require that agencies receiving federal funds invoice against their obligations at least once every six months. Projects that do not have invoicing activity over a six month period are placed on the Inactive Obligation list, and those projects are at risk of deobligation of the project’s federal funds unless Caltrans and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) receive either an invoice or a valid justification for inactivity. Caltrans is tracking inactive obligations, and releasing a list of inactive projects quarterly. If Caltrans and FHWA do not receive adequate invoicing or justification for the project’s inactivity, the project may be deobligated.

Background: The Federal Inactive obligations list for the March 2011 Quarterly Review of Inactive Obligations is now available on the Division of Local Assistance website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/Inactiveprojects.htm. The Inactive Project List contains the current Inactive projects and the 3-Month and 6-Month Look Ahead Projects.

To prevent the deobligation and potential loss of unexpended federal funds, local agencies must submit a valid FMIS transaction (invoice or justification) by May 20, 2011.

Project sponsors are requested to review the attached report as well as the Caltrans site on a regular basis for the most current project status.

Attachments: Attachment A – Federal Inactive List Attachment B – Justification form

Page 167 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.5

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 168 Alameda County Quarterly Review of Inactive Obligations (Review Period 01/01/2011- 03/31/2011)

Updated on 04/14/2011 Inactive Projects (Review period: 01/01/2011‐03/31/2011) Project No LOOK AHEAD State Agency Description Authorization Last Total Cost Federal Funds Expenditure Amt Unexpended Bal Agency Action Project No Date Expenditure Required Date

7TH STREET WEST OAKLAND TRANSIT VILLAGE , 5012082 6 MONTH Submit invoice to District. 04924529L Oakland RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY,PED. WALWAY 10/11/2007 8/20/2009 $ 482,000.00 $ 320,000.00 $ 265,646.36 $ 54,353.64

Invoice returned to Agency, Resubmit to 66TH AVE.FROM SAN LEANDRO TO INTERNATION BLVD, 5012087 6 MONTH District. 04924796L Oakland STREETSCAPE 3/30/2009 8/27/2010 $ 2,067,126.00 $ 1,230,000.00 $ 36,781.77 $ 1,193,218.23 Justification accepted last quarter. Submit invoice or new justification to District by FIVE ELEMENTARY SCH. & 1 MIDDLE SCH., SIDEWALK 5012089 INACTIVE 05/20/2011. 04924862L Oakland "BULB‐OUT" 3/2/2008 3/10/2009 $ 700,425.00 $ 700,425.00 $ 62,725.00 $ 637,700.00

ARRA PROJECT. Invoice being processed by 5012101 6 MONTH Caltrans. Monitor for progress. 04925596L Oakland VARIOUS STREET AND ROADWAY REHAB., AC OVERLAY 11/18/2009 9/9/2010 $ 1,258,949.00 $ 1,255,000.00 $ 6,385.66 $ 1,248,614.34

Submit invoice or justification to District by 5012110 INACTIVE 05/20/2011. 04985831L Oakland CITYWIDE AC OVERLAY, AC PAVEMENT 2/22/2010 $ 633,000.00 $ 560,000.00 $ ‐ $ 560,000.00 No Federal funds remain. Proceed with project closure or submit justification to W. A ST.‐I‐880 TO HATHAWAY AVE. . , ROADWAY 5050031 INACTIVE request project to remain open. 04924460L Hayward REHABILITATION . 2/15/2006 3/5/2008 $ 137,808.00 $ 122,000.00 $ 122,000.00 $ ‐

5057035 6 MONTH Submit invoice to District. 04925836L Berkeley SEE COMMENTS, UPGRADE PARKING METERS 9/8/2010 $ 2,250,000.00 $ 1,800,000.00 $ ‐ $ 1,800,000.00

No Federal funds remain. Proceed with project closure or submit justification next UNION CITY FTA TRANSFER (CA‐90‐X851), PURCHASE 2 5354010 3 MONTH quarter to request project to remain open. 04928588L Union City PARATRANSIT VEHICLES 4/1/1998 5/9/2008 $ 121,461.00 $ 107,529.00 $ 107,529.00 $ ‐

Alameda VASCO ROAD ‐ LOS VAQUEROS ROAD TO ALAMEDA 5933102 6 MONTH Submit invoice to District. 04925691L County COUNTY LINE, CONSTRUCT MEDIAN BARRIER 8/31/2010 $ 3,445,000.00 $ 2,969,921.00 $ ‐ $ 2,969,921.00

San Francisco I‐238 TO HAYWARD STATION, SR‐92, INDUSTRIAL BLVD, Bay Area Rapid ALAMEDA CREEK AND UPRR, SEISMIC RETROFIT OF 6000044 6 MONTH Submit invoice to District. 04925621L Transit District BART STRUCTURES, FREMONT LINE 9/21/2010 $ 31,374,000.00 $ 6,951,376.00 $ ‐ $ 6,951,376.00

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid SAN LEANDRO, HAYWARD AND FREMONT, SEISMIC ACTAC 6000045 6 MONTH Submit invoice to District. 04925623L Transit District RETROFIT‐BART A‐LINE STATIONS 9/21/2010 $ 40,131,000.00 $ 2,526,646.00 $ ‐ $ 2,526,646.00 Meeting Agenda Page Attachment 05/03/11 Item 169 5.5 A Page 1 of 2 Alameda County Quarterly Review of Inactive Obligations (Review Period 01/01/2011- 03/31/2011)

Updated on 04/14/2011 Inactive Projects (Review period: 01/01/2011‐03/31/2011) Project No LOOK AHEAD State Agency Description Authorization Last Total Cost Federal Funds Expenditure Amt Unexpended Bal Agency Action Project No Date Expenditure Required Date

San Francisco 18TH STREET IN OAKLAND TO ASHLAND AVENUE IN Bay Area Rapid HAYWARD/FREMONT, SEISMIC RETROFIT‐AERIAL 6000047 6 MONTH Submit invoice to District. 04925625L Transit District STRUCTURES 9/21/2010 $ 77,996,000.00 $ 10,648,389.00 $ ‐ $ 10,648,389.00

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid IN WEST OAKLAND, SEISMIC RETROFIT OF BART 6000049 6 MONTH Submit invoice to District. 04925646L Transit District FACILITIES 9/21/2010 $ 18,654,000.00 $ 1,339,004.00 $ ‐ $ 1,339,004.00

No Federal funds remain. Proceed with Alameda ‐ project closure or submit justification next Contra Costa SAN PABLO CORRIDOR; ELECTRIC TROLLEY, 6002004 3 MONTH quarter to request project to remain open. 04927705L Transit District ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING STUDIES 5/1/1995 5/9/2008 $ 1,284,311.00 $ 1,137,000.00 $ 1,137,000.00 $ ‐

No Federal funds remain. Proceed with project closure or submit justification next FREMONT BART STATION & COLISEUM BART STATION , 6002005 3 MONTH quarter to request project to remain open. 04928164L Alameda TRANSIT CENTER IMPROVEMENTS 7/1/1996 5/9/2008 $ 886,706.00 $ 785,000.00 $ 785,000.00 $ ‐

No Federal funds remain. Proceed with Alameda ‐ project closure or submit justification next Contra Costa 04‐ALA‐0‐ACT, ALAMEDA & CONTRA COSTA CO., TIRE & 6002006 3 MONTH quarter to request project to remain open. 04928509L Transit District TUBE REPLACEMENT, AVL/AVM(*) 2/1/1998 5/9/2008 $ 3,362,367.00 $ 2,975,830.00 $ 2,975,830.00 $ ‐

Port Of MARTINEZ SUBDIVSION RAIL CORRIDOR MP‐15 , INTER‐ 6057012 3 MONTH Submit invoice to District by 05/20/2011. 04925411L Oakland REGIONAL RAIL INTERMODALSTUDY 4/17/2009 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ ‐ $ 150,000.00

Livermore No Federal funds remain. Proceed with Amador Valley project closure or submit justification next Transit 6193001 3 MONTH quarter to request project to remain open. 04069024L Authority FTA TRANSFER PROJECT, BUS PURCHASE 12/1/1993 5/9/2008 $ 1,961,370.00 $ 1,736,400.00 $ 1,736,400.00 $ ‐ Alameda County Congestion Invoice being processed by Caltrans. Management I‐880: MARINA TO HEGENBERGER I/C'S ., IMPLEMENT 6273045 3 MONTH Monitor for progress. 043A9208L Agency HOV LANES. 12/19/2007 5/26/2010 $ 7,806,000.00 $ 7,780,000.00 $ 6,781,000.00 $ 999,000.00 ACTAC Meeting Agenda Page Attachment 05/03/11 Item 170 5.5 A Page 2 of 2 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.5 QUARTERLY REVIEW OF INACTIVE PROJECTS JUSTIFICATION FORM SUMMARY Attachment B

1. CT DIST - FEDERAL AID 2. STATE PROJECT 3. RESPONSIBLE AGENCY 4. DATE PROJECT NO. NUMBER

5. GENERAL LOCATION

6. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK (INCLUDE PROJECT PHASES WITH OBLIGATED FUNDS)

7. AUTHORIZATION 8. FEDERAL-AID FUNDS 10. PHASE 11. FEDERAL FUNDS EXPENDED TO 12. UNEXPENDED FEDERAL 9. PGM CODE DATE AUTHORIZED (from E-76) DATE FUNDS

TOTAL: 13. LAST ACTIVITY (BILLING DATE) Important note: Caltrans and/or FHWA reserve the right to reject a Justification and deobligate the Federal Funds.

14. JUSTIFICATION (CHECK ONE OR MORE IF APPLICABLE)

Litigation Filed Environmental Delays Right of way, Utility Relocation Delays

Justification Forms without proper supporting documents will be rejected and returned to Agencies by Caltrans. Decision to accept or reject a Justification may be based exclusively on this form and supporting documentation.

15. LIST PROJECT HISTORY FROM INITIAL AUTHORIZATION OR FROM LAST BILLING. LIST CURRENT PROJECT STATUS/REASON FOR PROJECT BEING INACTIVE. PROVIDE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION.

16. ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESOLVE EXISTING ISSUE(S)

17. DATE ACTIVITIES TO BE RESUMED 18. DATE BILLINGS OR OTHER CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN (e.g. closure, withdrawal, et

20. IF ESTIMATE IS LESS THAN UNEXPENDED BALANCE, AMOUNT TO BE DEOBLIGATED 19. CURRENT COST ESTIMATE NEEDED TO COMPLETE PROJECT (Attach copy of E-76 requesting deobligation)

21. CONSEQUENCES IF FUNDS ARE DEOBLIGATED

22. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION (LIST ATTACHMENTS) TO SUPPORT VALIDATION OF THIS OBLIGATION

23. AGENCY CONTACT EMAIL SIGNATURE PHONE NUMBER DATE

24. FORM REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY:

CT DISTRICT CONTACT NAME/TITLE SIGNATURE PHONE NUMBER DATE

Page 171 REVISED DATE: 2010-09-27 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.5 QUARTERLY REVIEW OF INACTIVE PROJECTS JUSTIFICATION FORM SUMMARY Attachment B Please go through the check list before submitting your justification form ( DO NOT leave anything blank ) # Information Required Additional Information Check Enter the District number and federal project number (including the 1 project prefix, e.g. STPL)

2 Enter State Project Number, if applicable

3 Enter Responsible Agency

4 Enter date you've completed the form

5 Enter route information and location description

6 Enter work description including project phases with obligated funds

Enter date when funds were authorized. Use a separate line for each 7 Refer to the current inactive list/file phase with authorized federal funds posted in the web http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPro 8 Enter authorized federal funds grams/InactiveProjects/QuarterlyRe 9 Enter all program code(s) viewofInactiveProjects.htm

10 Enter project phase (e.g. PE, RW, CON, etc.) Use E-76 for this item Refer to the current inactive list/file 11 Enter accumulated expenditure by program code posted in the web http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPro 12 Enter unexpended funds grams/InactiveProjects/QuarterlyRe 13 Enter last billing date viewofInactiveProjects.htm

Select the appropriate reason(s) for justification; for litigation filed, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPro 14 submit copy (with stamp) of the documents filed grams/Inactiveprojects.htm Include project timeline from the time of authorization or last financial transaction to present. 15 List project history e.g. original bid rejected - costs exceeded engineer estimate by XX%

Explain why previous commitment has not been met. 16 Action(s) taken to resolve the issue e.g. to be re-advertised after additional funding determinations

e.g. Revised date for contract 17 Enter date activities to be resumed award 18 Enter billing dates or other corrective action to be taken

19 Enter current cost estimate needed to complete

20 Enter amount to be deobligated for unneeded funds

21 Enter reason/consequences if funds are deobligated

Copy of environmental approval; litigation; r/w acquisition; copy of invoice; proof that they have been 22 Additional back-up documentation working on a project since initial authorization; project timeline and funding plan; PSA; etc.

Person prepared the justification 23 Enter contact person from local agency must sign the form

Person reviewing and approving the 24 DLAE approving official justification must sign the form

ANY INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION FORM WILL BE SENT BACK TO DLAE Page 172 REVISED DATE: 2010-09-27 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.6

Page 173 ACTAC Meeting 05/03/11 Agenda Item 5.6

Page 174